Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT (TOWER HILL) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Political Situation

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his current policy towards the situation in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We aim to create a stable, peaceful and prosperous society which accommodates fairly and generously the identities of both parts of the community.

Mr. Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the maintenance of good relations between Dublin and Westminster is paramount? Does he accept that parts of the Forum report are worth building on and should not be completely dismissed? Does he believe that a parliamentary tier to the Anglo-Irish Council would be helpful at this time?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that a good working relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom is very much in the interests of Northern Ireland as well as of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The point about a parliamentary tier is essentially a matter for the Parliaments concerned and not one on which the Government should take an initiative.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend shy away from taking any new political or constitutional initiatives in Northern Ireland in the near future?

Mr. Hurd: I have tried to be steady and reasonable in what I have said about these matters, but I believe that there is an opportunity now, primarily for the elected leaders of the Province, to move away from arguing across the divide and finding ways in which they can hold practical discussions. If I can help that process forward with suggestions, I am ready to do so.

Security

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.

Mr. Hurd: Since I last answered questions in the House on 29 November one soldier and five civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. The security forces continue energetically to combat terrorism. During 1984, a total of 528 people were charged with serious offences, including 41 with murder and 68 with attempted murder, and 197 weapons, 27,211 rounds of ammunition and 8,535 lb of explosives were recovered. I know that the House will join with me in paying tribute to the efforts of the security forces.

Mr. Molyneaux: What value can be attached to the Dublin Government's promises of co-operation when their Foreign Minister, Mr. Barry, consistently seeks to undermine and render ineffective measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent terrorism? Does it not look as though Mr. Barry has assumed the role of protector of all people of Irish descent now living and working in England?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the same reports of Mr Barry's remarks as I have. I have the impression that, under questioning, he measured his words with a good deal of care, and has been quite strongly criticised at home as a result.

Mr. Proctor: Is it not intolerable that the Irish Foreign Secretary should have interfered in measures taken in Liverpool and elsewhere to safeguard the lives of our citizens, and does this not put at risk, and is it not a contradiction of, the professed claims of Dublin to want to improve Anglo-Irish relations?

Mr. Hurd: Again I am in a difficulty. My information is that although Mr. Barry was pressed hard to comment in the sense that my hon. Friend describes, he refrained from doing so.

Sir John Farr: As the new Maghaberry prison, with more than 500 individual cells, will be opening later this year, and as the prison service in Northern Ireland is staffed at a rate of over three warders to one prisoner, will my right hon. Friend, in the ensuing months, consider the opportunity that is offered of abolishing the special category status there?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the opening of the new prison. A number of related decisions have to be taken, and in considering what they should be I shall cover the point made by my hon. Friend. I have not yet taken any decisions, and some press accounts of this are therefore speculative at this stage.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to look at the extent to which funds are made available for the protection of off-duty members of the Ulster Defence Regiment in their homes, and will he ensure that the same amount of money is available for them as is available for members of the RUC and the RUC reserve?

Mr. Hurd: I am willing to look at this matter. The problem of protecting UDR part-time members when they


are at home is an important one which I have discussed with the hon. Gentleman more than once. We are doing everything that we can.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Secretary of State agree that security in Northern Ireland is not helped if those who are charged with conspiracy after being arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act are not brought to trial quickly but are remanded indefinitely, or when the Act is used to arrest people for no other reason than that they are Irish and drunk? If one cannot be drunk on Christmas Eve in Liverpool, where can one be drunk?

Mr. Hurd: The administration of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on this side of the water is not my responsibility. I have been surprised at the speed with which people on both sides of the water have rushed in to comment on recent events before they know what has happened or what charges are being made. A little prudence from the hon. Gentleman would be advisable.

Rev Ian Paisley: Has there been any change in the Government's policy of granting personal protection weapons to those members of the UDR, the RUC and the police reserves who have finished their term of service, as there has been difficulty in individual cases, to which I have referred in letters? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement today on the bombing in Newry?

Mr. Hurd: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have just had reports about the bombing in Newry, which has caused a great deal of damage in commercial premises, although no one has been seriously injured. However, I do not have the full details. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, there has been no change of policy, and he will understand that these are difficult decisions. I am sure that he will continue to draw specific examples to our attention.

Mr. Bell: On the question of security in Northern Ireland, and the consequential emergency provisions, does the Secretary of State recall the interesting and objective debate in the House on the Baker report? A number of recommendations were made during that debate and the Government showed their firm intention of acting on some of them. Does the Secretary of State intend to publish his proposals in a White Paper, and if so, will he append to the White Paper the various written submissions such as those made by the standing advisory commission on human rights in Belfast, he has received since the Baker report was published?

Mr. Hurd: We had a good debate just before Christmas on the Baker report. I am still digesting that debate and moving towards decisions on what changes in legislation we would recommend to the House. Let me include in that digestive process the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about a White Paper and its impact.

Gas Industry

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received about the future of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr Rhodes Boyson): Following the Government's announcement on 6 September 1984 that the Kinsale project would not be proceeded with, representations have been made by

hon. Members of this House and also by some Northern Ireland politicians, local councils, employer and trade union groups in the gas industry, industrial and commercial concerns and members of the public.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister agree that his refusal to consider proceeding with the Kinsale gas project signs the death warrant not only for the Belfast gas industry but for 13 other areas, that over 1,200 jobs in Belfast alone, and others in many ancillary industries, will be lost, and that many thousands of homes will be affected? Has he considered the Coopers and Lybrand report of 21 December, which demonstrated the viability of a project to bring natural gas to the Greater Belfast area? Will not a course opposite to that suggested by Coopers and Lybrand cost at least £90 million in the Belfast area alone, with the closure of the gas industry?

Dr. Boyson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the gas industry provides only between 2 and 3 per cent. of energy in the Province, and that the subsidy to it costs about £12 million. It costs £10,000 per man employed in that industry. What one spends on one part of the Northern Ireland block, one cannot spend on another. If, at any time, a viable scheme came before us, we would look at it. We have said simply, not that we will close the industry down, but that we shall not continue to give a subsidy. The Government have made their position clear on that point.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members have felt that Northern Ireland has a right to be on the United Kingdom grid? What progress has been made with the exploitation of lignite near Lough Neagh and elsewhere?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking those questions. About 15 per cent. of households in Great Britain are not receiving natural gas, because the gas industry is committed only to providing gas within 25 yd of a gas main and in reasonable quantities.

Mr. Skinner: Burn coal.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman may be a greater expert on coal than on gas. There are people in Great Britain who are not actually plugged in.
We hope that before the end of this month about 200 tonnes of lignite will be burnt at the west Belfast power station. A decision on lignite's future will be influenced by that action. There is no doubt that there are massive reserves of lignite in the Province. There are about 400 million tonnes of lignite in Crumlin alone. Lignite is similarly to be exploited in five other areas in the Province. If we find that we can provide electricity economically by using lignite, the whole energy position of the Province will be transformed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister encourage the liquid gas industry by including liquid gas in the fuels eligible for conversion grants and thereby fill the gap, which is growing?

Dr. Boyson: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this aspect. We shall certainly consider seriously the points involved. We shall by no means dismiss that idea and, if posible, we shall ensure that that is done.

Mr. Bell: As the Minister has read the report of the joint working group of the Northern Ireland gas employers board and gas trade union group, does he agree with its


conclusions that action will be required to save jobs in the gas industry and to remove threats to many more who may be indirectly affected, that a viable gas industry will benefit consumers, and that it will cost less to secure a future for gas in Northern Ireland than to close the present industry?

Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the future of a viable gas industry. The Government do not believe that there is a viable gas industry in the Province without heavy subsidisation. It is far better to grasp the nettle and to say immediately that we must find some other fuel which is more economic in the Province than to go on continually subsidising an industry that is slowly dying.

Planning Law

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he intends to make in planning law.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): In response to a recommendation of the Northern Ireland Assembly my right hon. Friend proposes to introduce legislation which would require applicants for planning permission to notify neighbours of their development proposals and would, in addition, make a number of miscellaneous amendments.

Mr. Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the defects in the legislation which recently allowed an applicant from Doagh road, Ballyclare, effectively to bypass both the local council and the planning department and have his application approved by a planning appeals commissioner? What action does the hon. Gentleman intend to take to ensure that that does not happen again?

Mr. Scott: I know that my hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the points raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). I, too, am aware of the circumstances that have given rise to this concern. I am

Constituency
Total No. of postal ballot papers issued
Removals
Physical disability
All other grounds




Number
Percentage of total
Number
Percentage of total
Number
Percentage of total


North Down
614
47
7·65
515
83·88
52
8·47


Strangford
555
46
8·28
421
75·86
88
15·86


South Down
3,068
109
3·55
2,673
87·13
286
9·32


Lagan Valley
905
54
5·97
766
84·64
85
9·39


Upper Bann
1,458
40
2·74
1,249
85·67
169
11·59


Newry and Armagh
3,145
86
2·73
2,539
80·73
520
16·54


Fermanagh and South Tyrone
7,345
136
1·85
6,290
85·64
919
12·51


Mid-Ulster
5,026
94
1·87
4,534
90·21
398
7·92


Foyle
3,279
162
4·94
2,933
89·45
184
5·61


East Londonderry
3,381
78
2·31
2,912
86·13
391
11·56


North Antrim
1,585
32
2·02
1,393
87·89
160
10·09


East Antrim
589
14
2·38
489
83·02
86
14·60


South Antrim
781
46
5·88
661
84·64
74
9·48


Belfast North
601
68
11·31
488
81·20
45
7·49


Belfast East
567
60
10·58
438
77·25
69
12·17


Belfast South
1,091
48
4·40
935
85·70
108
9·90


Belfast West
712
144
20·22
558
7837
10
1·41


Total
34,702
1,264
3·64
29,794
85·86
3,644
10·50

advised that, in the absence of a reason for a particular use, further enforcement action could be taken against a developer.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I acknowledge the improvement in enforcement procedure that was brought about by the previous Minister in the Department of the Environment, but will the Government bear in mind the undesirability of that procedure resulting in planning decisions being taken, in the first instance, by the planning commission?

Mr. Scott: I take note of the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and will confer with my hon. Friend.

Postal Votes

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the votes cast by post in June 1983 in each of the constituencies of Northern Ireland were on grounds of (a) removal, (b) physical disability and (c) all other grounds.

Mr. Scott: As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I shall, with permission Mr. Speaker, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Powell: Assuming that postal votes in respect of removal are only a very small proportion of the total, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in this context the scope for abuse is exceedingly limited?

Mr. Scott: Yes. I will clarify that figure. The average throughout Northern Ireland of postal votes for that purpose is about 3·6 per cent. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill. This is a matter that we shall wish to consider carefully in Committee.
The information in respect of postal votes cast in the June 1983 general election in Northern Ireland constituencies is as follows:

Political Situation

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to have discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hurd: I look forward to continuing discussions with Ministers of the Government of the Irish Republic within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. I would not normally expect to announce in advance the dates for such meetings.

Mr. Dubs: When the Secretary of State next meets his opposite number from the Republic of Ireland, will he be putting forward specific proposals about the future of Northern Ireland, or simply responding to suggestions from the Republic or from the political parties in the North?

Mr. Hurd: When the occasion arises I shall be guided by the phrase in the Chequers communiqué of November, which referred to the need for close and continuing dialogue between the two Governments on subjects related to Northern Ireland within the framework of the intergovernmental council. It is certainly not just a matter of sitting back and listening to the ideas of others. We may well have some ideas of our own.

Mr. Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to assure the House that the Government remain committed to a close and developing relationship with the Irish Government? Does he believe that the misunderstandings which arose after the recent summit have now been dispelled?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I think that they have very largely been dispelled.

Mr. Flannery: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), when part of a country has been wrested from it by force of arms it is inevitable and natural that the rest of the country—the 26 counties as opposed to the six—should be interested in the future of that part? Moreover, does he realise that there will be no future except killing, bombing and so on unless discussions take place between the Republic and this country about the future of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hurd: When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) says that something is inevitable, our doubts are automatically aroused. When he goes on to make a fundamentalist statement which is deeply unhelpful, our doubts become certainties.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no departure from the policy stated time and again by the Prime Minister that the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland is a matter for Her Majesty's Government, this House and the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hurd: The constitutional guarantee has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by successive Secretaries of State, and it stands.

Mr. McCusker: Despite what the Secretary of State said, does he accept that although there may be matters of mutual interest which should be discussed with the Government of the Irish Republic, the future of Northern Ireland should not be so discussed?

Mr. Hurd: I think that the position was made perfectly clear in the Chequers communiqué and in what was said after it by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. I believe that the Irish Government are well aware of the constraints and limits thus set by ourselves, but within those constraints I believe that there is a good deal of useful and important work to be done.

Mr. Stanbrook: Following the question of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), who does my right hon. Friend regard as his "opposite number" in the Republic? Are not relations with sovereign states a matter for our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Hurd: I did not take that point up at the time as it seemed somewhat captious to do so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is quite right. I believe that I am unique.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the appeal panels and tribunals in processing milk quota appeals.

Dr. Boyson: The four local panels have considered virtually all the special case claims from some 3,900 producers. In addition, over 400 appeals have been considered from producers who requested a review of the initial rejection by the Department.
The tribunal received about 3,450 exceptional hardship claims and has dealt with about 80 per cent. of these, together with over 800 appeals against local panel decisions.

Mr. Nicholson: I welcome the fact that the tribunals and panels are finally coming to their conclusion, but is the Minister aware that many small producers in Northern Ireland received nothing when they went to the appeal tribunals and panels, and that they have been seriously disadvantaged by the fact that it was the large producers who appear to be receiving whatever milk quota is available?

Dr. Boyson: There are two problems here. The first is when somebody applies for extra quota and is rejected; secondly, there is the even greater problem of people who have been granted extra quota. We do not know until we have finished examining all the special claims how much of the allocation will be given to them. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of the problem, as are all the territorial Ministers involved in agriculture, and it is currently being examined.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, with regard to the appeals, the percentage of allocation given will be very small in terms of the amount of quota available? To follow what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) said, is the Minister also aware that it is not the large dairy farmer about whom we need to worry, but the small dairy farmer, who is making his living from a small number of cows?

Dr. Boyson: I am well aware of the problems which have been raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is obviously very knowledgeable about agriculture in Northern Ireland. I am also aware that the small dairy farmer, on certain issues, faces greater


problems than the large dairy farmer. The whole question of how much can be allocated to those who have succeeded in their appeals is being examined. Indeed, meetings are being held between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other territorial Ministers to see whether anything can be done to correct the Northern Ireland situation.

Flags and Emblems (Northern Ireland) Act

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy towards the repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Northern Ireland) Act.

Mr. Scott: The Government recognise that there are strong feelings in Northern Ireland both for and against repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. We have no plans for repeal, but the use of, and need for, the Act is kept under review.

Mr. McNamara: Why not repeal it? There have been no prosecutions under the Act, and the standing advisory commission on human rights almost 10 years ago recommended its repeal. This would eliminate a cause of annoyance to an important section of the community and would be one of the sympathetic gestures which we were led to understand we might get from the Prime Minister ever since she threw out the Forum report.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has put forward one side of the argument. He will be as aware as I am that there is another side of the argument, and the Government will want to consider both sides before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister agree that, irrespective of whether the Act is repealed, the police would still have to intervene when the flaunting of a flag or emblem was likely to lead to a breach of the peace?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Act has not been used since at least 1969 and the Royal Ulster Constabulary is confident that it has sufficient powers under public order legislation to deal with any provocative use of flags or emblems.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: May we not dispense with this legislation when there is effective immunity for those who may wish to fly the Union Flag in the South?

Mr. Scott: I think that we want to look at legislation in Northern Ireland and how useful it is within the context of the situation there. We shall of course bear in mind my hon. Friend's views, together with all the others that are expressed on this matter.

Mr. Bell: Given the exchanges with the Minister, is it not a fact that the only time the Act was enforced in the mid-1960s it sparked off the Divis street riot, and as it appears that the same powers exist under the common law in order to prevent a breach of the peace, is not the Act superfluous and irrelevant, and should it not therefore be repealed?

Mr. Scott: The powers exist under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, and it is those powers that the RUC uses. That is a factor that we shall bear in mind in coming to a decision.

Loss of Employment (Compensation)

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider making changes in the scheme for compensation for workers who have been forced to leave their employment, or who have been dismissed, for reasons directly attributable to the civil disturbances.

Dr. Boyson: I have no plans at present to do so, but I shall take note of any representations that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make.

Mr. Ross: Given that jobs are so scarce in Northern Ireland, is not the loss of a job, whether after six months or 20 years, for whatever reason, a very serious matter? Will the Minister look at the legislation for compensation that is tied to the redundancy payments scheme? After a short time at work some people have been forced out of their jobs by direct terrorist threats, and that is a very serious problem for them.

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. The compensation scheme has been tied to the redundancy scheme. Anyone who has worked for a minimum of two years before being forced out of his job is already in the scheme. But if it is obvious that many people are being forced out within one or two years, we shall have to look again at the scheme.

Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr. John M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the development of the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its functions.

Mr. Hurd: The detailed knowledge of local affairs brought by Members to the scrutinising functions of the Assembly's first phase has undoubtedly been helpful. What is required now is agreement on proposals for devolved government that would enable the Assembly to assume the powers envisaged in the Northern Ireland Act 1982: that remains the chief reason for its existence.

Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many who believe in the Assembly and that it is doing a good job? Will he urge SDLP Members to accept that their constituents' best interests are not being served by their continued abstention, and will he prompt the Unionists into giving a lead in showing how useful powers might be acceptably given to the Assembly?

Mr. Hurd: In general I agree with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to the future work of the Report Committee of the Assembly, because that work is central to the body's usefulness.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the Secretary of State enlighten us as to just how far he has progressed in his talks with the SDLP about its members taking their seats in the Assembly? Has he any statement to make to the House on that point?

Mr. Hurd: I make no secret of the fact that I should like to see the SDLP in the Assembly, but it sees great difficulties about that. It is essential that the elected leaders of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland should find some means—whether inside the Assembly or without—of—

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): entered the Chamber—

Mr. Hurd: May I take this opportunity to welcome back very warmly to the House my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to congratulate him on the courage that he has shown throughout these past weeks? May I also ask him to convey our very best wishes to his wife?

Mr. Bell: As the duty officer of Her Majesty's Opposition, may I also take this opportunity of welcoming the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) back to his place in the House? To paraphrase the words of a song, we have grown accustomed to his style, and we wish, hope and pray that he is now restored to his full strength and vigour. May I add that that is the easiest supplementary question that the Secretary of State will have to answer all day?

Norah McCabe

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received calling for an inquiry into the death of North McCabe; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: Since 4 December 1984, one early-day motion, one parliamentary question, six letters from Members of Parliament, one letter on behalf of a political party and nine letters from members of the public have made representations for an inquiry into the death of Mrs. Norah McCabe.

Mr. Parry: The Secretary of State will be aware that early-day motion 195 is supported by 79 hon. Members and calls for an inquiry into the tragic and unnecessary death of a young mother of three children. Will he reconsider his decision not to hold a public inquiry, which he announced in a written reply to me of 20 December? Has any compensation been paid to the dependants of that unfortunate young woman?

Mr. Hurd: I have thought long and hard about that. There are two aspects. The first relates to possible action against individual police officers arising from the death. I cannot second-guess the independent decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has examined all the evidence, including the film, part of which was recently shown on television, and has come to that conclusion. I have no grounds nor standing to second-guess that.
The second aspect relates to the control of the use of plastic baton rounds, which I have also examined carefully. The House should know that every incident in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary now has to use those rounds is reported to me, and that the use of each round now has to be accounted for. [Interruption.] Yes, compensation has been given.

Mr. Bell: I appreciate the fullness and frankness of the Secretary of State's answer, but does he recall the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State during the debate on the Baker report. He said:
The law provides that any person may use only such force as is reasonable, and both the police and the Army in Northern Ireland have to operate within the law"?—[Official Report, 20 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 645.]
Does the Secretary of State feel that the force used in the killing of an innocent bystander was reasonable in relation

to the circumstances surrounding that death? If he does not, why does he not accede to the demands for an inquiry and establish culpability if there is culpability?

Mr. Hurd: I tried to explain in my original answer the reasons why I do not believe that I can second-guess the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had access to all the evidence available. I should modify slightly my last answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). The action that Mrs. McCabe's husband brought against the Chief Constable for the death of his wife was settled out of court on 29 November for a substantial sum.

Funerals (Propaganda)

Mr. Beggs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to prevent the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein from using the funerals of terrorists for propaganda purposes.

Mr. Scott: I know that paramilitary displays at funerals give great offence to many people. I am satisfied that the law makes adequate provision for the control of such funerals. It is for the commanders of the security forces on the ground to decide what action to take within the law, whether at the time or subsequently. They must balance the extent of the offence caused by a paramilitary display with the implications of intervention for public order and security.

Mr. Beggs: On behalf of the Ulster Unionists, may I welcome back the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, express our great pleasure at his recovery and our wish that it continues? I ask him to convey our good wishes to his good lady.
Is the Secretary of State not deeply concerned that Sinn Fein leaders have been openly involved in organising funerals for terrorists, at which volleys have been fired by other terrorists in Northern Ireland? Can he assure the House that the law is adequate to ensure and permit prosecution of those who organise such activities, and, if it is not, will he take steps to have the law so amended?

Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend will have heard the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am satisfied that the law is adequate, but it must be for the judgment of the security forces on the spot whether they intervene in certain circumstances. In the past, people have been apprehended and convicted in those circumstances.

Rev. William McCrea: On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, may I join with every hon. Member in welcoming the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) back to his rightful place in the Chamber, and convey every good wish to his good lady and pray that she will be restored to health and strength?
Does the Minister agree that paramilitary displays, such as those witnessed in Londonderry recently, are totally obnoxious to every decent citizen in Northern Ireland and should not be tolerated in any part of the United Kingdom? Why do the suffering citizens of Northern Ireland have to witness such a total disregard for the law of the land?

Mr. Scott: We have to rest on the judgment of the security forces commanders. The House will be aware that in certain circumstances intervention could put at risk other innocent lives. In those circumstances, the


commanders might judge that intervention was not to be preferred against the possibility of identification and subsequent apprehension.

Mr. McNamara: May I also welcome back the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and, in his own style, may I say that I look forward to the time when he is gracing the Opposition Front Bench?
What instructions are given to the RUC about removing tricolours from coffins?

Mr. Scott: The tricolour would normally be removed only in circumstances that were likely to cause a breach of the peace. The public order implications that we discussed on an earlier question would be taken into account. That is entirely different from the discharging of volleys over coffins by armed men.

Provisional Sinn Fein

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will instruct Northern Ireland civil servants and the employees of statutory bodies in Northern Ireland within his responsibility to refuse to meet or communicate with elected representatives of Provisional Sinn Fein.

Mr. Hurd: Contacts with such representatives are kept to the minimum, but, in the interests of constituents, and to ensure that administration is equitable, representations on purely constituency matters are dealt with at local level in a fair and proper manner.

Mr. McCusker: What aspects of the behaviour of Sinn Fein are so objectionable to the Secretary of State that they prevent him from meeting or communicating with its representatives? Why do they not apply to civil servants and those employed in statutory bodies, and to families, many of whose members may have been murdered by associates of Sinn Fein?

Mr. Hurd: It is right that Ministers should refuse to meet Sinn Fein representatives or to reply to letters from them until and unless Sinn Fein renounces violence. I make no apology for that. However, representations made on behalf of constituents must be dealt with properly and fairly in the interests of those constituents, which is why we have arrived at the procedure about which the hon. Gentleman knows.

Health and Social Service Boards (Staff)

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of community doctors, nurses, psychiatric nurses, social workers and therapists employed by the various health and social service boards.

Mr. Scott: As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the publication of the figures, is the Minister aware that there is growing concern that some vacancies in the community have not been filled? Is he further aware that some people suspect that this is an attempt to save money that will cause problems in the service given to patients? if there is to be a shift from care in hospitals to care in the community, will the Minister acknowledge that there must be adequate funding and staff to achieve that?

Mr. Scott: Of course, I recognise that. There has been the shift to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and there is provision for an expansion of community social workers in the immediate future.

Following are the figures:



Eastern
Western
Northern
Southern


Community, Doctors*
7½
3
7
4


Community Nurses
826
252
395
317


Community Psychiatric Nurses
33
25
8
14


Community Social Workers
444
110
188
103


Community Therapists
113
23
48
24


* Defined as specialists in community medicine.

The figures are as at 30 September 1984, except for community psychiatric nurses, which are at 13 December 1984.

Political Situation

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to prepare discussions with all interested political parties in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic on the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State accept that those who believe that the last word has been said about Northern Ireland are sadly mistaken, and that the circumstances prove that to be true? Does he further accept that the future of Northern Ireland depends on many discussions and debates? Therefore, will he make it clear that, especially because the policy of the main Opposition party—the Labour party—is for a united Ireland, those discussions must continue with all interested parties, including the Republic?

Mr. Hurd: It would be rash indeed for anyone to predict the day when the last words had been spoken about Northern Ireland. There is an important distinction here which the hon. Gentleman constantly seeks to blur. The United Kingdom needs a good working relationship with the Republic of Ireland, but the initiative on discussions about the way in which the Province should be governed rests essentially with the elected leaders of the Province. I shall give any help or make any suggestions that I can to ease that process.

Mr. Steel: Will the Secretary of State lose no opportunity to make it clear to the populations of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic that the one thing that unites all parties in the House is our determined opposition to terrorism, and that we all rejoice to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry here this afternoon? We wish him and Mrs. Tebbit well.

Mr. Hurd: We are all grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Security Forces

Mr. Maginnis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he takes to publicise the role and achievements of the security forces in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend and I have taken, and will continue to take, every opportunity to publicise the


work and achievements of the security forces in Northern Ireland. Their work is commended in statements and speeches and during the course of radio, television and newspaper interviews. Attention is also drawn to the achievements of the security forces by the regular inclusion of statistics in the answers to parliamentary questions and in press releases and other publications, and by the briefing of journalists and others from home and abroad. Ministers also make well-publicised visits to units of the security forces in the Province.

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Minister aware that there is a scurrilous campaign to discredit the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment — a campaign that is aided by naive members of the public who are not themselves connected with terrorism? Will he take steps to see that incidents in which members of the security forces are involved are more fully explained to the general public? We understand that, for security reasons, there must be constraints, but we feel that not enough is being done to put the case for the members of the security forces.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman appreciates the constraints that frequently exist when criminal charges may be brought in certain circumstances. However, I can certainly agree wholeheartedly with him that everything that promises to be effective against terrorism in Northern Ireland is subject to a scurrilous campaign designed to discredit it. Ministers will do their best to counter such campaigns.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Secretary of State for Energy

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Energy.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): No, Sir.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House why the Secretary of State for Energy did not make better use of his meeting with the leaders of the Trades Unions Congress, led by that nice man Mr. Willis? As the pound slumps, and as further industrial action is contemplated in relation to the mining dispute, will the right hon. Lady do what Energy Ministers do not seem to be able to do, and get negotiations under way?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy makes excellent use of all his opportunities. In particular, he never fails to explain what an excellent offer the National Coal Board has made to the National Union of Mineworkers. It is better than any previous offer. Both my right hon. Friend and I hope that more and more men will continue to return to work.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Did my right hon. Friend notice that yesterday the Secretary of State for the Environment, after the National Economic Development Office meeting, said�–

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will consult his Order Paper, he will see that the question refers to the Secretary of State for Energy.

Engagements

Mr. Parry: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Parry: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the recent report by Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel, which suggests that hundreds of people are dying from causes related to mass unemployment, including 150 on Merseyside? What steps does the Prime Minister or her Cabinet intend to take to reduce unemployment and those horrifying figures? If the right hon. Lady had shown half as much commitment to reducing unemployment as she has to attempting to destroy the NUM, the picture today would be very different.

The Prime Minister: If we had fewer strikes, people might have more confidence in goods produced in this country and might place more orders. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the only long-term way to reduce unemployment is to produce goods and services that people in this country and other countries will purchase, and that is the aim and purpose of the Government's policies.

Mr. Fox: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to give her support to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education's excellent proposals to introduce assessment of teachers? Will she accept that this innovation would have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of parents, who want the education of their children to be improved?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals meet with great support, especially from parents and from all who are interested in raising the standard of education in this country.

Mr. Hattersley: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the report submitted yesterday to the National Economic Development Council, which describes the chronic deterioration in Britain's infrastructure? Will the Government provide the money to remedy the increasing decay of our schools, hospitals, public sector houses and roads and thereby concentrate available funds on what every objective authority agrees is the best way in which to reduce unemployment—public sector capital investment?

The Prime Minister: That question comes from a right hon. Member who belonged to a Government who reduced and smashed capital expenditure in many Departments, especially on roads, housing and hospitals. The Government have put a great deal of extra expenditure into hospitals and roads. This year, for example, investment in major roads will be 27 per cent. greater in real terms than in 1978ȓ79. We are also putting greater investment into the water industry this year. The purpose of making public investment is that we get a good return, or because certain investment is necessary. The Government have a good record on public investment. Moreover, fixed investment across the economy was running at an all-time record in 1984.

Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister totally ducks the unemployment question, which is central to what I asked her. I therefore ask her again: does she, or does she not, accept the evidence that is now supplied to her, even by the Department of Trade and Industry, that by far the best way to reduce unemployment and create real jobs is through public investment in repairs and construction? Does she accept that evidence? If she denies it, or refuses to comment on it, we shall know what we have always suspected—that once more a Conservative Government choose higher unemployment because they have other priorities more consistent with the Conservative philosophy.

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, or with what he says about what other people say. Public sector investment remains at about the same real level as it was during the last year of the Labour Government. We also have a record amount in fixed investment across the economy. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that extra expenditure on infrastructure is the best way in which to increase employment. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, we spend £2 billion a year on special employment measures. That secures far more jobs than what he is proposing.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Faced with the growing stocks of chemical weapons in the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend make it crystal clear today that Great Britain will keep to its permanent policy of improving its defences against chemical attack and seeking international agreement on the banning of chemical weapons, and will not resort to the manufacture of chemical weaponry in Britain?

The Prime Minister: The facts are that Britain abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. There has been no change in Government policy since then, nor is any change now proposed. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to keep defence policy under review in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the massive Soviet capability in chemical weapons. As my hon. Friend said, the Government are playing a leading part in the international negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive, verifiable and worldwide ban on these weapons, and we tabled important initiatives in March 1983 and February 1984 on verification and challenge inspections. We abandoned our chemical weapons. Any criticism should be directed at the Soviet Union for keeping a massive chemical warfare capability.

Dr. Owen: I welcome back the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and salute his courage.
Can we expect that the Confederation of British Industry's request for £1 billion of capital investment in our crumbling infrastructure will be given a rather better hearing than it has received recently? Will the Prime Minister deal with the Institute of Fiscal Studies' estimate that £1 billion of capital investment would create 165,000 jobs and that the same amount of money in tax reliefs would create only 30,000 jobs?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I said in reply to a previous question, the Government are spending, through the taxpayer, a considerable amount of money on infrastructure. This year, partly because of the drought, we are increasing

investment in the water industry—it is 9 per cent. up. Investment in major roads is 27 per cent. greater than it was under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I would not accept, and I do not know where he gets it from, that expenditure on infrastructure is the best way of increasing jobs. We get a far better deal for £2 billion expenditure on special measures, which, as he knows, helps 400,000 to 600,000 people.
With regard to alternative methods, I think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned reductions in taxation. Reductions in taxation are one way of increasing net take-home pay without increasing industrial costs and therefore keeping competitiveness in industry.

Mr. Blair: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is saying that these works of infrastructure are not to be done now, when will they be done? Is she aware that delay is making the cure costlier? Does she not agree, at the very least, that any room for manoeuvre on Budget day should be dedicated to measures that increase investment in the infrastructure and thus combine necessity, efficiency and employment?

The Prime Minister: I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is not hearing what I am saying about the amount spent on public sector investment. Public sector investment remains at about the same real level as in 1978ȓ79. It is £24 billion. The extra spending on infrastructure does not gain anything like the same number of new jobs as spending on special measures. We spend £2 billion on special measures. That includes a great deal of training. That training also helps young people to be equipped for some of the science-based industries of the future. That, I believe, is the right way in which to increase employment possibilities.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that during 1985 the main economic target will be the continued control and reduction in the level of inflation, as this is likely to lead to the greatest number of people in employment and to a potential increase in employment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall, of course, maintain our objective of continuing to reduce inflation. I understand that that might even find support on the Opposition side of the House, as I recall the occasion in December 1978 when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said:
Our immediate intention is to hold the inflation rate at or about its present level. Our eventual aim is to reduce the figure to the level enjoyed by our most successful competitors, for unless we achieve our objectives none of our other policies—economic growth, lower unemployment, higher investment and improved services financed by public expenditure—can fully succeed."—[Official Report, 13 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 677.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: In December it was widely reported that the Prime Minister would be considering the


Stansted report during the recess. What is her reaction to it? Is she aware that a quick and definitive rejection of the inspector's recommendations is wanted by hundreds of us on both sides of the House, not least by those from the north, where even the thought of £1 billion-plus expenditure at Stansted excites not just outright opposition but anger?

The Prime Minister: I hope that many hon. Members had a very interesting recess, as I did, reading that report and that they will be ready to have a debate in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that I can say nothing whatsoever about it, for obvious reasons. We are committed to having a parliamentary debate before too long, I hope, before the Government make up their mind. By the time we have that debate, I hope that hon. Members will have read the report.

Dr. McDonald: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official enagagements for Thursday 10 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. McDonald: Why, in the answers that she has given about public investment, has the Prime Minister consistently ignored the fact that the NEDC report talks about many million of pounds worth of repairs still to be carried out to roads, sewers and houses in particular?—[Interruption.] Why has she ignored housing and the fact that many people are living in gross discomfort in damp and dismal homes and that repairs to those dwellings

would make their lives far more comfortable and would provide many jobs—[Interruption.] Is she aware that a moderate spending of £1 billion a year would provide between 70,000 and 100,000 more jobs each year, and will she cease to dismiss this as unimportant?

The Prime Minister: In so far as I could hear the hon. Lady, I repeat that on public sector investment this Government are spending some £24 billion. There has been a switch of emphasis on housing—as people want—from public to private sector, and that reflects this Government's belief that most people wish to own their own homes. Owner-occupation rose by 1·7 million between 1979 and 1984, and the hon. Lady clearly criticises the Labour Government's housing record because the dwelling stock rose by 900,000 between 1979 and 1984.

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the private notice question unless they arise directly from Question Time.

Mr. Flannery: My point of order is about questions, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister constantly to read all her answers instead of answering questions in a proper way?

Mr. Speaker: Everyone has his own method of dealing with questions in this House, and it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Flannery: She is cribbing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Putney (Explosion)

Mr. Nicholas Soames: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the explosion which occurred this morning in Putney.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): The House will be aware that at 7.12 am this morning there was an explosion at Newnham house, Manor Fields estate, Putney, in London.
I have to inform the House, with great regret, that the latest information is that three people have died, six are unaccounted for, and a further two are in hospital.
Rescue operations are still in progress. Emergency services were quickly on the scene, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in whose constituency the explosion occurred, has told me of the skill and bravery being shown by the rescue services working in the present dangerous conditions.
While it has not yet been possible to establish with certainty the cause of the explosion, all the evidence available at present points to it being a gas explosion. Responsibility for gas safety rests with the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. A team of inspectors from the executive reached the site early this morning. An investigation team from SE Gas is also already present at the scene. The Health and Safety Commission has now set up an inquiry under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, and I have asked the chairman to let me have a preliminary report at the earliest moment.
I know that the whole House will join me in extending our deepest sympathy to those bereaved, injured and homeless as a result of this tragic occurrence.

Mr. Soames: The House will appreciate that, apart from the great concern and interest felt by all hon. Members, I ask this question at the request, and on behalf, of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who because of his ministerial duties is unable to do so.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the inquiry by the Health and Safety Executive will be conducted with the greatest urgency and that the report will be published as soon as it is to hand? Will he also pass on to the emergency services the gratitude and admiration of hon. Members for the great skill and courage which they have shown?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm my request that the report should be prepared at the earliest opportunity. I understand that it is the intention of the commission that the report should be published, and I certainly support that.

Mr. John Prescott: May I on behalf of this side of the House express our deepest sympathy to the injured, to the relatives of those who have so tragically died and to the homeless as a result of this explosion? May I also express our appreciation and admiration for the immediacy of the response of the police and our emergency services who are continuing to deal with the emergency? Since the Secretary of State has said that the report will be published, may I ask him how long he believes the report will take to prepare and whether the interim report will lead to a statement being made by him?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first domestic gas explosion to be investigated by the Health

and Safety Executive since it took over responsibility in 1984? Will he ask the executive to look at the extent of gas explosions, despite the very good safety record of the gas board, during the last five years and to include an assessment in the final report?

Mr. King: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his expressions of sympathy and respect and of admiration for the emergency services. The House will know that they have been working throughout the morning in a very dangerous structure, with gas still escaping. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department himself told me of the great courage being shown by people who are working with great dedication in very dangerous circumstances. Therefore, the tribute paid by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend is well deserved.
Obviously it is not possible for me at this stage to answer the hon. Gentleman's two questions about whether it will be appropriate to make a further statement on any interim findings, but certainly I take note of his interest and of the concern of the House to be kept informed. I shall be anxious to ensure that that is done in the most appropriate way. In terms of the general safety record, it is worth remembering that there are 16 million gas consumers and that there are 9 million central heating gas installations. Last year there were 25 serious explosions. It is interesting to note that the figures show a steadily declining trend over the past three years and give some indication of generally very high standards of safety within the gas industry.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I extend my sympathy to the bereaved and the injured and also my admiration for those public services which have had to deal with the results of the explosion, but, when the inquiry is completed, could public authorities and private owners of blocks of flats where there are gas installations be requested to have a further look at their installations with a view to increasing awareness of the danger of such explosions? I believe that this is something which the House must take into consideration.

Mr. King: I pay tribute to the general standards of safety, but my hon. Friend's wise words of caution — that people should be aware of the importance of taking proper precautions—are most important, and the general guidance of British Gas and the area gas boards should be closely followed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic parties with the expressions of sympathy and the recognition of the work done by the emergency services. I am sure that all London Members will want to join me in saying that.
May I ask that the proper inquiry that is to be conducted by the Health and Safety Executive should be extended as soon as possible to look at the two clearly related matters which are often of great concern to all of us and to the public: first, the immediacy of the response to emergencies of the statutory undertakings—not only the gas board — and, secondly, the need for money to be made available where it is required for the maintenance of the infrastructure, in this case piping, if in bad weather such as that which we have experienced recently it is shown that that is a contributory factor to the inability to


deal quickly or properly with complaints about the gas service such as those which have been made in recent weeks, we understand, in Putney?

Mr. King: I would rather not comment on the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman said in advance of even the preliminary findings of any inquiry, but I should like to put it on record that my understanding is that a reported gas leak was recorded by SE Gas at 7.2 am, that the explosion occurred at 7.12 am, and that the response of SE Gas was so fast that a van was outside at the time of the explosion. There was some concern that the gas safety inspector was inside at the time of the explosion, but happily that proved not to be the case. However, that shows the speed with which the statutory undertakers responded to the call.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that this is the second occasion within the past six months when Ministers have felt it necessary to praise the professionalism and integrity of public sector workers in non-profit making industries such as the National Health Service, the ambulance service and others connected with rescues? As Secretary of State for Employment, will he give a guarantee that when those people put in for a wage increase they will not be subjected to denigration and that if they have to go on strike to further that claim they will not be further attacked by the Government?

Mr. King: I do not think that the House would expect me to respond on this occasion to that intervention.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill and of the Water (Fluoridation) Bill.
Remaining stages of the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY—Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). A debate on an Opposition motion on the reduction of unemployment through public investment.
Motion on the Food Imitation (Safety) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY — Motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2) 1984–85, (No. 3) 1983–84, and on the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1985–86.
Motion on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1985–86.
Motions on the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 17 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a Government motion on regional policy.
Motions on the Assisted Areas Order, the Regional Development Grant (Qualifying Activities) Order and on the Regional Development Grant (Prescribed Percentage, Amount of Limit) Order.
FRIDAY 18 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Hong Kong Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: The Leader of the House will recall the Opposition's hope that the House would soon debate in Government time the threatened post office closure programme. Will such a debate be arranged?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will also recall that we are anxiously awaiting an opportunity to debate the Government's Green Paper on long-term public expenditure options. May I once more repeat the request that that debate is held sufficiently early to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take part in it before the Budget?
Thirdly, there have been great expectations that a statement would be made this week on the privatisation of British Airways. When will that statement be made?
Finally, could the Leader of the House find some time next week to remind the Prime Minister that when I made the speech that she so flatteringly quoted unemployment in Britain was rather more than 2 million less than it is today?

Mr. Biffen: I am flattered that I should be required to go in to bat for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in respect of his last point, but of course I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his observation.
I am not aware of any plans for a statement to be made next week on the privatisation of British Airways, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the right hon. Gentleman's interest.
It might be helpful to the House if we were to await the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee which is now considering long-term public expenditure before we debated that.
I have looked at the matter of Post Office closures. Clearly it is a topic of great interest to the House. None the less, it falls very much within the remit of the Post Office and I can offer no Government time for a debate on the topic. However, I have no doubt that it will fall within the designation of public investment to which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be drawing the attention of the House on Tuesday.

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing public concern about the commercial exploitation of surrogate motherhood. He will also be aware that the Warnock committee made a strong recommendation that there should be early legislation and that that was echoed when the House debated the matter before Christmas. May we expect an early statement of the Government's intentions about laying legislation this Session?

Mr. Biffen: I very much endorse what my right hon. Friend says about the importance of this topic. The matter is now under consideration and I shall draw the points he makes to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In view of the method, which is controversial from a constitutional point of view, being adopted by the Government to secure approval for an additional payment to the European Economic Community, may we be assured that there will be full opportunity for debate not only of the Estimate but of the authorising statute?

Mr. Biffen: I shall give further consideration to that point.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Will the expected debate on Stansted take place before 31 January, and is there any truth in the rumour that it will be spread over two days?

Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to tie myself either to specific dates or to rumours. My hon. Friend clearly speaks for many, however, when he underlines the importance of having an early debate.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his previous comments on the closure of post offices—bearing in mind that their closure has much wider concern than exists within the remit of the post office itself—and find time, possibly on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, to debate the subject?
Is there any possibility of debating at an early date the question of penalising strikers in relation to housing benefit, a matter which is raised in early-day motion 247, which is in the form of a prayer and which stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefits Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1965), dated 17th December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.]
Will there be the possibility of an early debate on matters pertaining particularly to youth? I understand that

the right hon. Gentleman received sympathetically an all-party delegation recently in connection with International Youth Year. Is there any likelihood of a debate on matters which are of particular concern to younger members of the community?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the importance of the whole issue of the future of the post office structure, but I can go no further than I went in my reply to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
I regret that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the prospect of Government time to debate the other two matters he raised, but as an experienced parliamentarian he will be aware that there are other opportunities that he can pursue.

Sir John Farr: Is there likely to be a statement next week about the need for an RAF trainer replacement aircraft? Recently there was a short list of two which did not include Firecracker. There is considerable uncertainty, and I understand that the short list has been extended to include Firecracker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of jobs in the east midlands depend on Firecracker being selected and that the sooner there is a statement the better?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the serious constituency factors which are involved for my hon. Friend. I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence to the points he makes and to the desirability of an early statement.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that a fourth group of academic accountants and economists has now challenged the accounting arrangements of the National Coal Board and that in response the NCB has appointed independent accountants to assess the board's accounting techniques? In the light of those facts, is it not time that the House was given an opportunity to debate this highly important matter, particularly as many of us believe that the solution to the dispute lies in our understanding, and the Government having a further appreciation of, what changes can be made?

Mr. Biffen: There seem to be as many interpretations of the finances of the NCB as there are accountants to take part in this practice. There is no time available next week for the Government to promote a debate on this topic, but undoubtedly there are many other opportunities open to hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman, and I have no doubt that they will take advantage of them.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Returning to the issue of a debate on Stansted and terminal 5 at Heathrow, as we now know that the next sitting of the Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill is scheduled for 12 February, is it not a fair assumption that any debate on Stansted and terminal 5 should desirably take place before then?

Mr. Biffen: I am ever anxious to be helpful to the House on this matter because I know that the House is trying to be helpful to me. However, I cannot go any further than what I have already said on the subject, and that was intended to be helpful.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread concern about the tremendous difficulties faced by pensioners and others on


limited incomes in trying to keep their homes warm in the present cold spell? Why has no Minister come to the Dispatch Box this week, nor shown any willingness to do so next week, to make a statement on this matter? Does this demonstrate the Government's indiffernece to such suffering?

Mr. Biffen: Politicians are becoming thin on arguments when they have to engage in spurious accusations of comparative morality and compassion.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman does not have any trouble.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is as well provided as I am. I shall draw his anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Dr. Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the Prime Minister's recent and successful tour of the world and its consequential negotiations. When may we expect either a statement or a debate on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot hold out hope of a statement, but I shall bear in mind that at some point there will be a natural occasion for a debate on foreign affairs. The Second Reading debate on the Hong Kong Bill will enable the House to express a view on the matter.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: When the Leader of the House considers the method of payment to the EEC for the supplementary budget for 1984, as he intimated to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that he would, will he bear in mind the background to this matter? Would it not be singularly unfortunate if, in addition to a debate on the Supplementary Estimate itself, there was not an opportunity — not necessariy all night — to debate the Second Reading of the appropriate special Consolidated Bill?

Mr. Biffen: That is taking the matter considerably wider than is necessary — the hon. Gentleman's smile confirms that.

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry; perhaps the hon. Gentleman never smiles. I shall take account of what he has said.

Mr. Richard Alexander: May I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider his answer about a debate on post office closures? I draw to his attention the fact that just before Christmas it was announced that two sub-post offices in my constituency were to close, a decision that will cause enormous hardship and suffering if it goes through. Should not this be challenged on the Floor of the House in a debate on the subject, and not left to someone who may be fortunate enough to squeeze the matter in during a debate on public expenditure?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a powerful constituency point, and it would be appropriate if he were to seek his good fortune in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Croydon coroner's court this morning the coroner recorded an open verdict on the death

of Peter Nadin on the Greek island of Mikonos last summer? In view of that, should not the Foreign Office be pursuing the Greek Government with great vigour to ensure that we get a full report of the circumstances surrounding the death of this person outside a police station on that island? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Biffen: I was not aware of the decision of the coroner's court, but I shall represent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary the points that have been made.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As the subject of chemical weapons has been raised, will my right Friend take account of the fact that many Conservative Members feel that it is almost close to negligence that, whereas the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact forces handle and train regularly with these ghastly weapons, our forces have no experience of them and, therefore, in the event of hostilities, they would be far more likely to be used than if there were a more balanced position?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am afraid that I can be no more forthcoming than to say that there will be no opportunity for a debate on chemical weapons in Government time next week.

Mr. David Alton: How does the Leader of the House respond to the complaint of Mr. Justice James McClelland, the chairman of the Australian Royal Commission investigating the events during the 1950s at Maralinga in Western Australia, that the British Government have stymied the work of the Royal Commission and that he has to carry out the inquiry with his hands tied behind his back? Is it not outrageous that a Royal Commission should meet in this country to investigate the problems of Australian ex-service men when such a right is not afforded to our own ex-service men?

Mr. Biffen: There is a wide range of parliamentary opportunities for raising points such as that.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further than he did in responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) about surrogate motherhood? I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of public disgust at surrogate motherhood for gain and the intense wish throughout the country for early legislation to prevent such action in the future. Will my right hon. Friend be more forthcoming about when we shall have such legislation?

Mr. Biffen: If I were able to be more forthcoming, I should have "forthcomed". There is, of course, appreciation of the great public interest in this matter. It is now under consideration, and as soon as a Minister can appropriately come to the House to make a further statement that will be done.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Is the Leader of the House aware that the article written by five academic accountants which was suppressed from the magazine Accountancy in December last year has now been published with little change, although there has been consultation with the National Coal Board? The Leader of the House said to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the Government cannot find time for a debate on the accountants' report or


other reports and the present coal mining dispute. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement on this issue which is the fundamental cause of the present coal mining dispute?

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that I would accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, but as he has made this request I shall gladly accede to it and convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the anxieties that have been expressed that a statement should be made on the NCB's methods of accounting.

Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the Opposition requests for a debate on the coal strike and on heating costs, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Opposition time were used for a debate on the coal strike, the House would be given a chance to explore how the strike is not only destroying jobs outside, and ultimately inside, the coal industry but unnecessarily increasing heating costs?

Mr. Biffen: That is perfectly true, but, alas, we shall not have that opportunity next week.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, if we had managed to obtain a statement on the NCB's accounting procedures, we might have been able to raise the question of the strange accounting procedures criteria that are acceptable to the Government when dealing with banks? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain or call upon any other Minister to explain why those banks whose reserves are exhausted, which are uneconomic units of production and have crooks running them are able to get a nod and a wink from the Government to save them and to receive more than £75 million from the Bank of England — the taxpayers' bank — to save them, yet, when—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I am almost done.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is business questions. The hon. Member should be asking whether a debate can be held on these matters and not asking the Leader of the House to give a definitive answer.

Mr. Skinner: During such a statement or debate, the Minister could draw a comparison with the shabby treatment received by the miners when they called on the National Coal Board to adopt proper accounting procedures that would show that every pit in Britain was economic.

Mr. Biffen: I have a warm affection for the hon. Gentleman in the way in which he pursues diversionary tactics for a dying cause. That is precisely the position he is in. I can go no further than I have already gone on the question of the representations I shall make to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall, of course, append the hon. Gentleman's voice to the voices of those hon. Members who have already spoken on the subject.

BILL PRESENTED

HONG KONG

Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Richard Luce, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the ending of British sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hong Kong: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Orders of the Day — Milk (Cessation of Production) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Joplin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last May, when I declared the Government's intention to introduce an outgoers compensation scheme for milk producers as part of the milk quota arrangements, I said that I should seek legislation as soon as possible to provide the necessary statutory authority for the payments that we intended to make under the scheme. The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide that authority.
The outgoers scheme is one element in the Community supplementary levy arrangements for milk. The introduction of the arrangements after last year's price fixing was intended to achieve an immediate cut in production in most member states in an attempt to restrain the growing surplus in the dairy sector and the ever-growing expense to the Community of disposing of that surplus. In 1983–84, the milk sector alone was supported under the common agricultural policy to the tune of more than £3 billion of Community money, with the prospect that this would rise to about £4 billion in 1984–85 and exceed budget provision unless drastic measures were taken to curb over-production.
As I have often told the House, we argued strenuously in Brussels for action via the price mechanism, but it became clear that other member states would not agree to price cuts of the severity necessary to deal with the problem. The only prospect for effective action to tackle the surplus was therefore through a quota scheme, and agreement was accordingly reached on a package of measures involving quota for each milk producer and a supplementary levy on milk produced in excess of quota.
In the United Kingdom the introduction of quotas required an immediate cut in production of 6·15 per cent. by comparison with the 1983–84 marketing year if producers were to avoid supplementary levy. In addition to this we felt it necessary, in accordance with provisions in the Community legislation, to provide a reserve of wholesale quota for reallocation to producers who satisfied special case criteria. About 2·5 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota was held back to fund the reserve for special cases. Overall, then, with the production cut and the amount withheld for the special case reserve, United Kingdom wholesale producers' primary quota allocations—that is, their basic quotas—have been set at 9 per cent. below their 1983 production levels.
It is a matter of common consent that one group of producers has been particularly hard hit by the imposition of production quotas — the small specialist producers who have no alternative to milk production because of the kind of farms that they occupy and little scope to adapt their dairy enterprises to lower levels of production under the quota system. We wanted to do something to help those smaller producers. In England and Wales, those producing less than 200,000 litres per year represent about 40 per cent. of all milk producers. Our aim is to enable those producers to return to their 1983 levels of production

without becoming liable to supplementary levy. We also decided, particularly in the light of the views expressed by hon. Members in the debate on 3 July, to make provision to help producers who might suffer exceptional hardship because of the introduction of quotas.
On the other hand, we felt that there were many producers, especially small producers, who would be willing to leave dairying altogether if means were found to make it easier for them to give up production and to move into some new enterprise or, for those of retirement age, to leave agriculture altogether. The quota released by those producers could then be reallocated. We estimated that for Great Britain about 1·25 per cent. of total quota would be needed to meet our objective of helping those small producers who wished to stay in milk production.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister's tone of argument seems to suggest that the Government want to get rid of small producers and look after the interests of the big ones.

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood, as the reaction of my hon. Friends shows. That is not what I was saying.
We added a further 1 per cent. to the 1·25 per cent. to assist other categories of producer particularly adversely affected by the introduction of quotas. The objective, therefore, was to buy up 2·25 per cent. of the total quota in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland we set the objective at 5 per cent. of quota in view of the greater reliance on dairying, the rate of expansion in the past few years and the number of small producers there.
The quickest and most effective way of releasing the extra quota needed was to introduce an outgoers scheme under which producers would receive compensation in return for surrendering their quota, which would then be reallocated to those in particular need. Our outgoers scheme accordingly came into operation on 24 July.
Naturally, it has been necessary to impose certain conditions on participants in the scheme. First, they must surrender their quotas in full and will not be able to return to milk production so long as the quota scheme is in operation. Secondly, tenants in England and Wales will have to obtain their landlords' consent to surrender their quota. I am aware that this has led to difficulties for some tenant farmers, but in many cases it has been possible for landlords and tenants to reach amicable agreements allowing the tenant to become an outgoer. The House may be interested to know that 45 per cent. of the payments that we have made under the scheme so far have gone to tenant farmers. That is an important figure, which may surprise many hon. Members. Many tenants have therefore been able to reach agreement with their landlords and I am grateful to the president of the Country Landowners Association for recommending to his members that before any decisions are taken they discuss them with, and consult fully, any of their tenants interested in becoming outgoers.
As regards the cost, we are devoting up to £50 million to the scheme over five years at a rate of 13p per litre of quota surrendered, or the equivalent of about £650 per cow at a yield of 5,000 litres per cow. The response shows this to be a reasonable incentive.
The last feature of our outgoers scheme to which I should like to draw attention is its non-statutory nature.


There were several reasons why we felt it necessary to introduce the scheme without specific parliamentary authority.
First, it was vital to the success of the scheme that it be brought into operation urgently so as to encourage outgoers to surrender their quota before they had used up too much of their 1984–85 allocation. There was, however, no existing United Kingdom legislation on which we could base an outgoers scheme. The Community provision allowing the payment of compensation to outgoers is permissive only and member states are not under any Community obligation to introduce outgoers schemes. For this reason, section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 did not provide powers for the introduction of a statutory outgoers scheme, although it provided for the introduction of other parts of the supplementary levy arrangements through the dairy produce quota regulations 1984 which were made under section 2 of the Act.
We therefore decided that it would be best to introduce the outgoers scheme on a non-statutory basis and to introduce legislation providing full authority for payments at a later date. Until this legislation was obtained, payments could be made under the authority of the Appropriation Act and the payments that we have made so far have been made under that Act. It is, however, a general principle that the extent to which, and the time for which, payments are made under the Appropriation Act should be minimised. As we had made provision to spend up to £50 million over five years, it was clearly right that specific statutory authority should be obtained as soon as an opportunity in the legislative programme could be found. I made it clear at an early stage that I would seek this authority as soon as possible. Hon. Members may recall that in the meantime I put copies of the Milk Supplementary Levy (Outgoers) Scheme in the Vote Office and the Library prior to our debate on the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 on 18 July last year.
I hope I have explained to the House in sufficient detail the need for the Bill. I now turn to the Bill itself and outline clause by clause—there are only seven clauses—what it is intended to do.
Its primary purpose, as I have indicated, is to provide the necessary specific statutory authority to pay compensation to milk producers who agree to discontinue milk production and to surrender their quotas to our reserve. This power is contained in clause 1 and gives effect to part of article 4 of Council Regulation 857 of 1984. This article allows member states to
grant to producers undertaking to discontinue milk production definitively compensation paid in one or more annual instalments".
This article of Community legislation is the fountainhead of the outgoers scheme.
As far as the existing scheme is concerned, payments made in pursuance of the scheme once the Bill is enacted will then be made under the authority of the Bill. Until that time, as I have said, the Appropriation Act will provide the necessary authority. The power to pay compensation contained in clause 1 will cover not only payments made under the existing scheme but also payments under any future scheme.
In addition to this general authority to pay compensation, clause 1 also contains powers which will enable any future outgoers scheme to be made by statutory instrument.
Although no further schemes are planned to succeed the scheme currently in operation, I believe that, as primary legislation is being sought at this time, the opportunity should be taken to provide for statutory schemes should there ever be the need for another outgoers scheme in the future, and I hope the House will agree to that.
Clause 1 also provides that any money paid out under a scheme may be recovered if the person who receives the payment fails to comply with the conditions of a scheme. I am sure hon. Members will agree that public funds should be protected in this way. It would not be right for a producer who had received public money to retain that money after failing to comply with any undertakings he had made to qualify for payment.
I am sure that hon. Members will also appreciate on similar grounds the need for the powers of entry on to land and inspection of records contained in clause 2. The purpose of this clause is to enable checks to be made to ensure that recipients of compensation under an outgoers scheme are not involved in milk production.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Minister leaves clause 1, will he make it clear whether there is any obstacle under the Bill or under Community legislation to the use of a quota bought in any particular region to inure to the benefit of producers or purchasers in other regions in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jopling: I shall check the answer that I give to the right hon. Gentleman, but as I understand it there is no immediate bar to a quota bought in one part of a member state being transferred to another. I shall check that and, if it is mistaken, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow my hon. Friend the Minister to refer to it in his winding-up speech.
I can assure the House that we have taken care to draft as narrowly as possible the powers provided by clause 2 consistent with the aim of enforcing the conditions of our scheme and of preventing the abuse of public money.
Clause 3 deals with offences and the penalty to which people will be liable if convicted of those offences. A person will commit an offence if he gives false information or obstructs an authorised officer in order to obtain or retain payment whether on his own behalf or on somebody else's. On summary conviction, the penalty will bea fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale, which currently stands at £2,000.
Clause 4 provides in the usual way that payments made to producers in accordance with clause 1 shall be made out of money provided by Parliament, and that any money recovered where producers fail to comply with the conditions of payment shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Clause 5 defines the Ministers who may exercise functions under the Bill. It means in effect that any future schemes should be made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland acting either individually or together in any combination.
Clause 6 applies only to Northern Ireland. Our existing outgoers scheme applies throughout the United Kingdom, but for constitutional reasons this Bill does not apply, with the exception, of course, of this clause, to Northern Ireland. This clause simply provides that an Order in Council which is made for the same purpose as in clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Normally, an Order in Council in the transferred functions field would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but as the order which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to lay before the House immediately after the enactment of the Bill will replicate its main provisions, we have thought it appropriate to provide that the order may be made subject to the quicker negative resolution procedure. This will make it easier for the main elements of the Bill to be given effect in Northern Ireland as nearly as possible at the same time as the Bill comes into effect in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As a safeguard, the wording of the clause ensures that the negative resolution procedure may be used only where the Order in Council does what the Bill does.
Clause 7 deals with the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill. It provides that, with the exception of clause 6, the Bill will not come into effect for two months after it is enacted. The purpose is to allow my right hon. Friend time to obtain his Order in Council to introduce similar arrangements in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister has referred to the possibility of future schemes and, as he will be the first to appreciate, future schemes will be introduced by way of statutory instrument subject to annulment. As my right hon. Friend knows, such a statutory instrument procedure is not subject to amendment in the House. Would he feel able to give an undertaking to the House that, if there should be a future scheme, he would always lay before the House draft regulations which would be the subject of discussion and subsequent amendment?

Mr. Jopling: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point, and it is an issue I would clearly expect to be discussed in Committee of the Bill. If I might ponder on that point, we can them come to our conclusion and announce it to the House at the appropriate time in Committee.
I hope that I have provided the House with a clear exposition of the Bill now before us.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. Friend is too sure that he has done that, will he tell the House where the legislative provision is to be found entitling the recipient to compensation under the outgoers scheme to elect for tax purposes whether it is treated as capital or income? I cannot see any such provision in the Bill. Where is the legislative provision for that circumstance which he described in introducing the original regulations, although not on a statutory basis?

Mr. Jopling: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that matters of taxation are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for me. That is the reason that, as a matter of consequent taxation, this does not come into the Bill. While I cannot do it off the top of my head, I am sure that it is possible to think of many precedents for arrangements to be made in one Bill and the tax treatment of them to be dealt with in existing or future legislation. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that that point will be covered in other legislation that will be available to enable that situation to occur.
Hon. Members will see that it is a short and relatively straightforward Bill. As my hon. Friend the Minister of

State in my Department made clear in our debate on quotas on 18 July last year, its purpose primarily is to put the payment of compensation to milk outgoers on a firm statutory basis. I am aware that certain sections of the media have misunderstood the purpose of the Bill as setting up a new outgoers scheme in addition to the one we already have. This, as I hope I have made clear in my remarks today, is not the case. The Bill is intended to cover the existing scheme and although it would allow another scheme to be set up on a statutory basis, neither I nor any of my right hon. Friends are considering introducing a further new scheme at the present time.
The closing date for applications to take part in this scheme was 28 August 1984. As we are now right in the middle of processing applications and inviting selected producers to make firm offers, I think this is an opportune moment for me to report to the House what progress we are now making with the outgoers scheme.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members received, either yesterday or today, representations from the National Farmers' Union concerning the present outgoers scheme, and asking that the Bill should be passed as speedily as possible. However, it also pointed out that our attention should be drawn to its inadequacies, especially with regard to meeting the hardship of development cases. In that respect we have been invited to urge the Government to consider an extension of the present scheme. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the NFU's suggestion? If he cannot do so now, perhaps his colleague can do so at the end of the debate.

Mr. Jopling: Given the difficulties of extracting the original £50 million from the Treasury and the problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Any one who has ever tried to extract £50 million from the Treasury knows that that is no mean feat. But given the Government's desire—which has my full support — to reduce Government expenditure, I can give no promise of an extension of the scheme, as that would mean that more public money would be needed at this difficult time.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jopling: Yes, but I think that this had better be the last time.

Mr. Hicks: Bearing in mind the very traumatic experience that the whole principle of imposing milk quotas has had not only on individual producers but on the countryside as a whole, is it not a desirable objective to allow those who wish to take advantage of the outgoers scheme to do so, so that, conversely, those who wish to remain in milk can get as large a quota as possible?

Mr. Jopling: In theory my hon. Friend has brought us a worthy objective from Cornwall. But there is the problem of public spending. However, I hope to give some idea now of how the scheme has gone—

Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jopling: This must be the last intervention.

Sir John Farr: The House is a little uneasy about what my right hon. Friend said to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), inasmuch as a parallel order introduced in relation to another subject is not in any way


amendable. Surely it would be an inappropriate vehicle to use unless there was a draft order first. In echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said, may I ask whether, if a similar order was introduced, it would be likely to relate to milk or to some other agricultural commodity?

Mr. Jopling: My remarks so far about powers for any further scheme apply to milk and not to any other commodity. But I must now get on with my speech.
The initial response was very encouraging, with producers expressing interest accounting for almost nine per cent. of total United Kingdom quota. Thus, in national terms, the scheme was heavily over-subscribed, though regionally the response varied, and overall we expected a significant number of applicants—for example, those whose special case claims were successful—to drop out once they had clarified their exact position. That is, in fact, precisely what has happened.
In England and Wales, 4,826 producers came forward with offers of 1,186 million litres in a full year, which is about four times the planned target of 289 million litres, In Scotland, offers amounted to 9·5 per cent. of quota for Scotland, which is about four times the planned target of 29·8 million litres. We decided, therefore, to give priority to the smallest producers most dependent on dairying, that is, those with fewer than 200,000 litres in England and Wales, and with fewer than 268,000 litres in Scotland. A small number of producers for whom milk is a relatively small part of their total enterprise have also been excluded.

Mr.D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Jopling: I have given way much more than most hon. Members do, and I must now make some progress.
Our first invitations went out to some 2,747 producers with 200,000 litres or less of primary quota allocation in England and Wales, and to 168 producers in Scotland with 268,000 litres or less. As soon as it became clear that a significant proportion of these producers were not going to become outgoers after all, we sent out further invitations in England and Wales in tranches of 25,000 or 50,000 litre increases, beginning with those having between 200,000 and 250,000 litres of quota on offer. Our last batch of invitations went out to producers with between 275,000 and 325,000 litres.
In Scotland invitations have now gone out to producers with up to 300,000 litres. If current trends continue in Great Britain as a whole, we may eventually be able to invite producers with up to 500,000 litres to join the scheme. As we gradually work our way towards the target, full allowance is being made for applicants who are unable to decide whether to become outgoers because their special case appeals or exceptional hardship claims have not yet been finalised. Once their claims have been dealt with they will have four weeks to make up their minds one way or another.
Although the drop-out rate has been fairly high, the scheme is operating satisfactorily in Great Britain. The objective is to take up 289 million litres of milk in England and Wales, and nearly 30 million litres in Scotland. By 4 January, 1,186 producers had committed themselves to the scheme in England and Wales. In total they will surrender some 136 million litres of quota on a full year basis. In

Scotland at the same time, 77 producers had committed themselves, providing a total of 12 million litres of quota in a full year.
We therefore now have 148 million litres of quota out of a planned total of 319 million litres already committed in Great Britain. Many producers still have to decide whether to proceed with their applications, and there is still a substantial number who have not yet been invited to join the scheme. There is therefore a good deal of slack to be taken up, and I believe that we shall reach our target of 319 million litres in Great Britain.
In Northern Ireland the position is less satisfactory. Indeed, 565 producers came forward offering 52·9 million litres of quota. This amounted to only four fifths of the target of 66 million litres—which of course represented 5 per cent. of the total quota rather than 2·25 per cent. as in Great Britain—and all those applicants were therefore invited to proceed. As expected, some did drop out, but by 4 January, 166 producers had committed themselves and they will surrender 10·8 million litres of quota in a full year. A further 131 have special case or exceptional hardship claims outstanding and we will not know how much quota will be available from these producers until their claims have been settled.
Thus it is difficult to say what the final position will be in Northern Ireland, but there seems likely to be a substantial shortfall in the quota made available by the scheme. That is disappointing and has obvious implications for small producers and those meeting the exceptional hardship criteria. My colleagues and I are looking to see if there are ways of dealing with the difficulties that arise from the poor response to the scheme in Northern Ireland, but we are not yet in a position to reach decisions.
The precise arrangements for re-allocation of outgoers' quota will vary somewhat between England and Wales, and Scotland and Northern Ireland in the light of local circumstances and priorities. In England and Wales, our intention is, as I have previously made clear, to help exceptional hardship cases and all producers with less than 200,000 litres of quota. In 1985–86 we expect, subject to re-examination of the figures when the outgoers scheme is completed, to be able to give exceptional hardship cases the full amount of quota determined by the tribunal.
Wholesale producers in England and Wales with less than 200,000 litres quota will, subject again to re-examination of the figures, have their quotas for 1985–86 increased by 11 per cent.—these are important figures—that is, sufficient to offset the 9 per cent. cut made in 1984–85 and the 1 per cent. cut to be made for all producers in 1985–86 in accordance with the original agreement last March.
A corresponding increase will be made in the quotas of direct sellers with under 200,000 litres. However, no producer's quota will be raised above 200,000 litres. The adjustments will be tapered to avoid anomalies for producers just above or below the 200,000-litre mark.
Any quota available in 1985–86 after meeting the needs of exceptional hardship cases and increasing the quotas of small producers may be used to help producers who are awarded development quota by the tribunal—that is, producers engaged in expansion programmes, whose awards will have been pruned back in 1984–85 to keep within the total amount of quota available. This figure will be of great interest to the House: in 1984–85 it looks at present as if the cut in those awards in England and Wales


may be of the order of 35 per cent. Next year we hope to be able to reduce the cut by this use of the outgoers quota, which is spare.
Because producers who became outgoers will have used a significant part of their quotas before joining the outgoers scheme, the total amount of quota available for re-allocation in 1984–85 will be substantially less than that available for a full year. In 1984–85 we envisaged using all the quota becoming available to help exceptional hardship cases.
Obviously, the United Kingdom is not the only member state to have an outgoers scheme. All other member states, with the exception of Denmark, Greece and Luxembourg, have announced details of their own schemes. Naturally, they vary in character considerably to reflect different circumstances and different aims. For example, Germany hopes to buy 4 per cent. of national quota as against 2·25 per cent. in Great Britain. In Italy payments will be made not for quota surrendered, as in other member states including the United Kingdom, but for each dairy cow slaughtered—the aim being to reduce the size of the national dairy herd by 5 per cent.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Jopling: I must finish my speech.
The main differences between the various schemes illustrate the difficulty of drawing direct comparisons between them. For that reason, I do not think that an attempt at comparative analysis would help the House. Nevertheless, compared with other schemes, we are satisfied that our scheme is advantageous for individual producers. The French scheme, for example, offers considerably lower payments to producers than does ours.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In his progress report on the outgoers scheme the Minister gave us statistics for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and for England and Wales together. Will he ensure that he gives us the statistics for Wales separately from those for England because his right hon. Friend bears equal ministerial responsibility to that of the agricultural Ministers for Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Jopling: I cannot do that now. I have provided a mass of statistics because I wanted to give the House the best information I had. If the hon. Gentleman cares to table questions about specific points, we shall see what we can do to help him.
Certainly, the encouraging response in Great Britain shows that the rate of payment for the surrender of quota was pitched at about the right level to provide sufficient incentives. Some other member states appear to have been less successful in attracting an adequate response from producers. Both Germany and the Netherlands have had to extend their deadlines for outgoers into this year. In Great Britain, on the other hand, the outgoers scheme closed on 28 August—well over four months ago—and we certainly do not expect there to be any shortfall in the amount of quota offered.
The outgoers scheme is going well, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Bill should have a smooth and rapid passage through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) referred to the NFU documents, and hoped that the Bill would soon

be enacted. The Bill is short and narrow in scope, but for all that it is extremely necessary because of the large amount of public money involved. It will benefit individual producers and the country if that money can be disbursed under the authority we seek to provide through the Bill. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: We welcome the opportunity for a further debate on the dairy industry. We were interested in what the Minister had to say, especially in the intriguing insight into negotiations between the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are always grateful for such information.
If I cannot compliment him on the contents of his speech, I can at least compliment the right hon. Gentleman on the frankness of the short title of the Bill: Milk (Cessation of Production) Bill. We get a lot of upbeat but fundamentally dishonest, short titles to Bills, but with characteristic finesse the Minister gives us a "cessation of production" Bill. There is nothing like calling a spade a shovel. No doubt we can look forward to "cessation of production" Bills for the coal and engineering industries as the Government continue their lunatic progress through the British economy.
Before I turn to the details of the Bill, I appeal to the Minister of State when he replies to say more than his right hon. Friend did about the progress, or lack of it, of the quota system throughout the European Community. That is inextricably tied up with the Bill's provisions. The outgoers scheme is an inextricable part of the quota system.
From previous debates the Government know that we regard the entire business as a dog's breakfast of expediency and incompetence. I do not know where the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) got his reputation for being a wet. First the dairy farmers and now our miners have come to know him for what he really is. It is the misfortune of this particular right hon. Michael that he has been left with the job of rowing this boat ashore. Many dairymen earnestly wish that he was doing something else.
The right hon. Gentleman and the country know that the previous Minister negotiated a lousy deal for the British dairy industry last March. He gave the industry 15 days' notice to reverse the stated objectives of successive Governments for the previous 40 years. Forty years' progress was thrown into reverse virtually overnight. He added insult to injury by selling 6·2 per cent. of our production when the overall European cut was to be only 4·1 per cent. Britain had the best case, but the Minister managed to obtain just about the worst deal. He must be condemned for that failure.
The Minister will have a final chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the industry during the 1985–86 price-fixing negotiations. He should try to ensure that the additional 1 per cent. cut in production that is due in April will not apply to Britain. That may or may not be possible, but the Minister should at least fight for it. He has given away more than enough already, and our producers have suffered more than enough already. We are entitled to demand that he should retreat no further.
The Opposition understand perfectly the need to restrain dairy production in the Community and the need to restructure the industry, but we have consistently


pointed to the fact that over-production is not a significant problem in Britain. There was no need for the Minister to make the concessions that he made last year. The Minister of State should say something more about that when he replies.
Against that background, may I ask the Minister for the clear undertaking that the British dairy industry will not be penalised for undershooting its 1984 quota? He has spoken about that in the past, but production has decreased significantly, partly because of drought during the summer, but largely due to the panic measures that were induced in the industry when the quota scheme was sprung on it last year. As a result, there could be a significant shortfall. I was alarmed to read a report in The Scotsman on Tuesday this week, written by its highly reputable agricultural editor, which stated:
There are now fears that unless quotas can be met dairy farmers will face another imposed production cut this spring as part of the EEC's 1985 farm price package.
If the Minister wishes to nail that point here and now, I should be only too happy to give way to him. He has said that Britain should not he penalised for undershooting the quota this time, and doubts have been expressed again this week. I hope that at some stage we shall be reassured by a Minister, if not by the Minister himself.
The Government are motivated by many primitive fetishes, one of which is that the state should not intervene in the economy. That is probably why the Government always make a mess when they become involved in restructuring industry. In this case, the Minister has one hand on the throat of the dairy industry and the other hand across his eyes because he cannot bear to see the effects of what he is doing, and no wonder. There has been a succession of hasty decisions and rough justice, and the outgoers scheme is a case in point.
The Labour party would support a properly funded and sensibly drafted outgoers scheme. I should explain why we regard this scheme with considerable disdain and how we believe it should be altered. As the Minister said again today, the objective is supposed to be to buy in enough quota for redistribution to small producers to enable them to return to their 1983 production level. That is all very well as far as it goes, but other people need extra quota. If the Minister has any doubt about that, he should consult the members of the panels and tribunals that he set up to deal with claims for secondary quota. There are some extremely pressing cases.
As an example, let us consider the hypothetical small farmer with 50 cows who may have made plans, as he was encouraged to do until 1983, to build up his herd to 100 cows. Events overtook that hypothetical dairy farmer, and he was caught on the hop when the Government introduced the quota scheme. However, he was told that there was an opportunity to obtain secondary quota, so he presented his case to the tribunal, which had to accept it. However, the tribunal had to ignore the first 10 per cent. of the increase applied for, so it could recommend only a further 45 cows. So far, so good. That would be tolerable, but it is not the end of the story. The Government will be able to satisfy only about two thirds of the additional quota recommended by the tribunals. The Minister confirmed that fact today. The figure for Scotland, which has been finalised, is 57·5 per cent. of the additional quota which the tribunals regard as being justified.
Therefore, the hypothetical small farmer who has invested heavily in machinery, buildings and equipment

for a herd of 100 cows may be allowed to milk only 80 cows. Such dairy farmers could face bankruptcy. The Minister must recognise the urgent need to obtain more quota for redistribution to such farmers. I could cite umpteen cases of disturbing examples of farmers who are not covered by the criteria laid down for special cases in the present scheme, and the Minister should he worried about that.
We must release more quota for distribution to farmers, who must be allowed to expand if the industry is to have any future. The only way to achieve that is through the outgoers scheme. The Opposition say that the scheme is cheap and nasty. It is nasty because the target of quota to be bought in for redistribution is inadequate and badly defined; it is cheap because the compensation to outgoers is inadequate. As we know, the scheme has been heavily oversubscribed.
The National Farmers Union estimates that there is a need for about 50 per cent. more quota than is covered by the present scheme. That figure may or may not be reasonable, but it appears that the quota the Minister intends to buy in is inadequate. If we need an additional 50 per cent. on top of what is already provided, that would cost an extra £25 million over five years. That is not an unduly high price for a secure future for an important industry such as the dairy industry, and it is far below the amounts provided in other countries, no matter how the Minister may try to avoid those facts.
The Minister's scheme will cost £50 million in compensation over five years. The first year of the scheme in France will cost £80 million, and a total of £200 million over three years. In Germany, the first year will cost £25 million, and the next 10 years will cost £206 million. On another basis, under the British scheme, outgoers will receive £130 a year for five years for each cow relinquished, which is a total of £650 per cow over five years. We should compare that with a possible payment of up to £940 per cow over two months under the Italian scheme. I recognise that that is an odd scheme, but it represents much money—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The comparisons are interesting, but they do not take into account the fact that Italy, Germany and France have many more small producers.

Mr. Home Robertson: I accept that point, but what I am trying to say is that, once again, the Minister has sold short British producers. In most cases we are talking about small producers. They are the people who the Minister is encouraging to come out, so in that respect they should be treated equally.
The Labour party feels especially strongly about the fact that the scheme includes nothing for employees who will lose their jobs because of the process. Many creamery staff are being made redundant, and the Transport and General Workers Union estimates that about 250 dairy stockmen on farms will lose their livelihoods because of the scheme. There is no special compensation to help those people to make new lives. The Dutch and Danish outgoers schemes provide some compensation for dairy stockmen, and we demand that the British scheme should contain similar provisions.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that anyone losing his job as a result of a farmer going out of business would be


entitled to redundancy payment. Is he suggesting that the redundancy payment should be artificially high, say, similar to that offered to coal miners?

Mr. Home Robertson: There are parallels in other industries, but these are exceptional circumstances. This restructuring was introduced as a result of European Governments' policies, and there are grounds for suggesting that if the farmer receives compensation, the employees who lose their jobs should also receive some.
The Minister should consider further the consequences of the scheme for the people concerned, and for the communities where those people live and the land that they farm. The current scheme is designed to move about 80,000 cows off existing holdings, or, in other words, to take about 150,000 acres out of dairy farming. We understand that, on the whole, smaller farms will be affected.
For the sake of argument, let us say that between 1,500 and 2,000 small dairy units will disappear under the provisions of the scheme. We accept that part of the scheme may be necessary, but we would approach the problem in a different way. Let us consider again the hypothetical small farmer with 50 cows. Instead of struggling on and trying to get some additional quota, he may decide to opt for the outgoers scheme. Dairy farming will then be banned on that farm for the foreseeable future.
The pay-off for the farmer will be £6,500 a year for five years. That sum will be taxed in one way or another, and a substantial proportion of it may well be committed to the bank because of previous borrowings. The final figure of £32,500 is not very substantial. It will not be adequate for the establishment of alternative enterprises and employment in the areas affected. Most of the farms concerned will be in traditional grassland areas in the west of the country. What is the alternative land use in such areas? Beef production, which might seem to be the most obvious answer, is in surplus too. The Minister will therefore be throwing those areas into turmoil.
Some older farmers may well retire on the outgoers scheme. What will happen to their land, and the fragile rural communities in which it is situated? I fear that rural depopulation may be aggravated. I have personal experience of what that would mean, as I live in the Scottish borders, which have suffered from rural depopulation for many years. The rural areas are entitled to more civilised treatment from any Government.
The Minister may achieve his short-term objective within the constraints laid down by the Treasury. He was kind enough to tell us how such matters are arranged. However, I wonder whether he understands the consequences, and I seriously doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer cares about them. We are debating the major restructuring of a major industry, which, sadly, will entail taking some land out of dairying. The Minister's policy is to buy in quota at the lowest possible price and then to wash his hands of the consequences. That is not good enough. He should be offering positive incentives and responsible guidance on alternative enterprises suitable for the former dairy units.
While considering what happens to the money paid under the outgoers scheme, I should like briefly to refer

to the skullduggery engaged in by landlords in some areas. I refer the Minister to a report in Farmers Weekly of 21 December. Under the headline
Rent 'blackmail' for milk outgoers",
the report states:
In Yorkshire, complaints of blackmail are being applied to demands on tenants wishing to quit milk. The owner's signature of consent"—
that is, the landlord's signature—
for a tenant to take the Outgoers' Scheme is being made conditional upon the tenant first agreeing to a hefty rent increase or to paying a cash sum to the landowner … More immoral still was the action of one landlord, working through nationally-known agents, who had not only made owner's consent conditional on agreeing a rent increase, but had insisted that the existing rental should operate for only two years, rather than the legal minimum of three years.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is not renowned for oppressing landlords, but he has at least managed to prevent that particular abuse in the case of Scottish tenant farmers. There should be similar safeguards for tenants in England and Wales. The payments are mean enough already. There is no justification for allowing landlords to get their hands on any of the money. The Minister was warned about that possibility during the debate on 18 July. He sought to sidestep the matter. The problem has now arisen, and he should tell us more about it when he replies to the debate.
We had hoped that the Minister would say more about the question of transferring quota from one farm to another. Clearly, more flexibility is needed. We have our views as to how that flexibility should be achieved, but I wish to refer in detail to two aspects of the scheme that seemed to us to be too restricted.
First, the Minister has decided to restrict the outgoers scheme to small producers, and he is taking a very long time to decide which applicants to accept. As the months go by there is tranche after tranche, and the uncertainty that afflicts the industry is prolonged.

Mr. Jopling: indicated dissent.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister may shake his head, but many people who applied six months ago are still waiting for a response, and that is causing uncertainty.
The Minister should buy in any quota that any producer wants to relinquish, within reason, and subject to alternative enterprises being available for the holdings concerned. Such a policy would be more flexible and might encourage some bigger producers to give up dairying in areas where feasible alternative enterprises are available. In that way a significant amount of quota could be bought back under the scheme, and the quota thus made available could enable proportionately far more smaller dairy farms to stay in business. That would be better for the broad rural economy.
Secondly, I cannot see why clause 1 has to compel producers to stop milk production altogether. The Opposition agree with the submission made by the Farmers Union of Wales that partial surrenders of quota should also be covered by the scheme. Such a scheme would make it possible to encourage dairy farmers to diversify their enterprises instead of abandoning dairying altogether. I urge the Minister to consider that point further. It is one to which we shall certainly return in Committee.
The Opposition are far from impressed with what the Bill does with the outgoers scheme. Every organisation representing farming interests has expressed the view that


the scheme is pitifully inadequate. We are appalled by the way in which the Government have treated the dairy industry in the past year. Together with a number of Conservative Members, we voted against the quota regulations at the outset. The industry needs sensible restructuring. What it is getting is closer to rapid strangulation.
We do not oppose the principle of compensating outgoers, so we will not vote against Second Reading. However, we shall seek significant improvements in the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The most important positive aspect of my right hon. Friend's introduction of the Bill was the flexibility that there will be. As there are, of course, pressures on legislative time, the best compromise is certainly for future additions to the existing scheme to be effected by statutory instrument. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) suggested, there should be a draft laid, so that hon. Members can respond to the Minister's ideas, which will then come before the House, as in the case of the quota regulations themselves, in a form in which they can pass rapidly into law. That is the best compromise for the further development of the scheme, and there is no doubt that there is a dramatic need for further development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) is not able to be here today because of a twice postponed meeting with farmers in his constituency. He has asked me to cover points that he would have wished to raise had he been here. There is no doubt that there is special hardship for those who have invested in development at the direct encouragement of the Government agency, the agricultural development advisory service. We should not be mealy-mouthed about this. Right up until the day before quotas were introduced, officers in the Ministry for which my right hon. Friend is responsible encouraged farmers to expand and paid a grant from public funds to enable them to do so. That is the justification for putting public money into the outgoers scheme, additional to what has been announced. It is clear that the 2·5 per cent. which is being held back, and which made the total of a 9 per cent. reduction on the 1983 figure, is inadequate—as my right hon. Friend admitted—to meet the assessment made by the panels and the tribunals of those who have applied for secondary quota on grounds of development, the Government being party to the encouragement of that development.
I am glad that today, unlike his earlier appearances at the Dispatch Box, my right hon. Friend did not pretend that farmers should have foreseen what he himself did not foresee. He adopted that wholly unacceptable posture last year. We should commend such progress. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend must go back to the Treasury and say that the litreage that he has been able to buy in through the outgoers scheme—he knew what the maximum would be, because it was limited by the £50 million—is not adequate to meet the full exceptional development conditions which are set out in his own regulations.
Although the regulations provide for scaling, in acknowledging the need for this secondary quota my right hon. Friend is acknowledging the case for buying back, at public expense, enough quota to meet those needs as

assessed. I cannot press him to do that too enthusiastically. He will have to do it in the end—the sooner and with the better grace, the better.
We should consider the case of other aspects of Government policy that are equally unavoidable. I am not pretending that the EEC surplus is the result of the Government's policy. Successive Governments have endeavoured to persuade the EEC to tackle this wholly visible problem long before it did. Some of us—I can say this as it is a matter of public record—called for quotas seven or eight years ago, before the massive expansion in France and Ireland, which has resulted in quotas being introduced so agonisingly for many of our small producers.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would comment on my next point. A pool was held back by the EEC for extra distribution to areas that are especially dependent on milk production. I never heard from the Dispatch Box by what formula such areas were to be recognised. Was it a matter of political pressure, or was it one of overt formula which can be tested in other areas, including the United Kingdom, to see whether they qualify as much as, for example, the Republic of Eire? Consideration of income tax to which producers are liable in the United Kingdom and the notorious absence of taxation of farmers in Southern Ireland reveals that what matters is not just net income—the difference between gross returns and gross expenditure — but post-tax income. Producers' standard of living, their ability to undertake capital development or to reduce debt, whether in southern Ireland, the United Kingdom or Luxembourg, depends on how much money they have after tax. On what formula is the held-back litreage allocated?
The outgoers scheme is rendered necessary by the quota system, so it is wholly in order on Second Reading to discuss matters without which the Bill would not have come to the Floor of the House. This is our only opportunity of a Second Reading on this matter as there will not be subsequent Bills. The implications of the Bill depend on the future of the quota system in the EEC, even after Spain and Portugal join, as they are likely to do. One of the prime reasons for present circumstances is the pressure on the EEC budget. It is highly likely, I hope, that quotas might be imposed on olive oil and wine as well. If so, it is probable that France will press for Algeria's right to send wine to the EEC not to be taken out of the French quota but to be treated as an obligation of the EEC because it has come in for many years. That has been recognised since Lomé. A similar analogy can be drawn with regard to New Zealand dairy produce. It has come to the United Kingdom for many years for reasons that are widely known. It is just as much an habitual inflow to the EEC as Algerian wine. My right hon. Friend should be working towards treating the import of milk products from New Zealand to the EEC not as a charge against the British quota. That is the best way in which to resolve the dilemma. Without such a resolution it will not be Britain but one small section of people in Britain—our dairy farmers — who will pay for New Zealand imports. A national obligation should be a Communitywide obligation. It is to that end that I would encourage him to work.
I wish to stress the strong resentment felt about the delay in the results of appeals. It is believed that there is inadequate secretarial staff on the panels and the appeal tribunals so that people have to wait eight, nine or 10


weeks for the result of appeals. It is also widely believed that although there is a common law throughout the United Kingdom, panels, often adjacent to each other, decide on widely different allocations of secondary quota although the factual bases of the cases may have been similar. This leads to considerable resentment.
I wish to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention one category of claim for secondary quota that has been dealt with parsimoniously by tribunals and panels. Where a small farmer has extended his premises with his own hands instead of employing a contractor he has not been treated well. In other words, his commitment to expansion has been out of his own resources, in some cases without the use of any Government grant. The pattern in these cases is that the panels have been conspicuously parsiminious in allocating a secondary quota although, had the physical expansion of facilities been financed even partly by Government grant and had there been bills to show from a contractor, it seems that there would have been a much greater allocation of secondary quota. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that this is unjust.
So long as the facts are demonstrable about the expansion of equipment or buildings or the purchase of cattle, it should not be relevant to the determination of secondary quota whether the expenditure was part of an ADAS-approved scheme, or whether money was lent by a bank. Even though those may be supporting evidence, that is not the essence of whether someone was committed to expansion. There is greater hardship when a farmer has paid 100 per cent. of the cost out of his own resources than when part has been paid by grant.
As many of us knew when it was introduced, the scheme is imperfect. It will be tolerable only if my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—he is not on his own in this battle—can extract from the Treasury the tiny sum of about £25 million—we are not talking about a large sum — to buy enough quota to allow the allocation of secondary quota to go through without diminution. That is the most important point that needs to be made in the debate so that the Bill can be welcomed for its ability to bring in quickly an extension of the existing scheme.

Mr. Geraint Howells: It is well known that, although the milk quota system has been in effect for more than nine months, the whole scheme appears still to be a complete shambles and, in the opinion of the majority of farmers, far from satisfactory. When one talks to members of the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Landowners Association and others involved with the industry, one finds that they are all despondent and will never forgive the Minister of Agriculture for making such a political blunder as he made last year.
There may be a lull in the protests, but this is only because of under-production due to various factors. I predict that in a year's time the position will be far worse if drastic action is not taken by the Government. As one who represents an area where the majority of dairy farmers have small or modest holdings—this is true of Wales as a whole and of many parts of Britain—I feel strongly that the Government have signally failed to protect the

interests of small farmers and have stood by seemingly indifferent as the rural economy has deteriorated as a direct result of the quota system.
The Bill is unlikely to help and should be modified drastically to ensure justice to an industry that has received more than its fair share of knocks in the past year. My colleagues and I will not vote against the Second Reading because it is the wish of many people that the Bill should pass through the House with all possible speed, but unless the Government will accept amendments to the benefit of dairy producers it is more than likely that my colleagues and I will vote against Third Reading.
I understand that by mid-December only 1,060 producers had applied to go out of milk production, and of those the majority appeared to be farmers with 30 to 50 cows. As the Minister did not like what I said earlier in the debate, it would be useful if he could confirm this when he is replying and also give a breakdown of how many farmers in Wales, in Dyfed particularly and in various regions of England and Scotland have gone for this option. If the correct figures are given on the Floor of the House, we shall know whether the Government are trying to persuade small farmers to give up dairying.
Because of the provisions outlined in the Bill and the operation of the quota system in general, it is inevitable that it is the small producer who will be forced out of business while the larger farmer, because of the nature of his enterprise, will be able to carry on with just a small adjustment in production. Like many other hon. Members, I feel that it is fundamentally wrong for this discrimination against the small producer to continue. Ways should be found to alleviate the hardship that many of them face. There should be more flexibility.
As it stands, the Bill makes it a condition of the outgoers scheme that a producer must surrender his quota in its entirety if he wishes to participate in the scheme. If farmers were given the option of giving up only part of their quota there would be a much greater response from the larger producer who would be more able to diversify. This would release more quota for use by the smaller producer who is not able to diversify.
If the scheme is to be successful, the terms for outgoers should be more generous. I do not think that 13p per litre or £650 per cow is sufficiently attractive to make the scheme effective. The sums involved should in all fairness be tax free as the money would be needed immediately for investment in other agricultural ventures. It should not be treated like ordinary income or profit.
I was disappointed when the Minister did not say specifically that the money handed over to the producers would be tax free. He should consider this again, because these farmers will sell the cattle directly off the farm and will be starting a new enterprise the following day. Consequently, this will merely be passing a sum of money from an old business to a new one. That is why it should be tax free. That is food for thought for the Minister during the next few weeks while the Bill is in Committee.
It would also be helpful if at this stage, with his hand on his heart for once, the Minister could reassure agriculture that if a farmer chooses to go out of dairying and into sheep or beef production, for example, he will not be faced this time next year, or in the near future, with another quota system on those products. What guarantees can he give on that point?
Many hon. Members are aware that there are many county council smallholdings throughout the country. I


have received a letter from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) who received it from Lord Hooson. It has been written by Andrew Thomas, group secretary of the NFU in Newtown, and states:
On behalf of our member Mr. E. J. Davies, Cefncanol, Penstrowed, Newtown I should like very much to bring to your attention his situation as regards being a tenant farmer on a County Council small holding producing milk.
Mr. Davies applied to go out of milk, wishing to take advantage of the Outgoers Scheme. Powys County Council his landlord, have stated that he cannot take advantage of this benefit and go out of milk, unless the quota to which he is entitled was to stay on one of their holdings. Please find enclosed a copy of a letter requested from Powys County Council on behalf of Mr. Davies which sets out his position.
I am sure that you have received many such letters as a result of the implementation of milk quotas, but the problems amongst Tenant Farmers are very prominent. These problems need sorting out urgently. It is a very uncomfortable, and distressing situation to have land lord set against tenant in a way such as this, and the sooner the position ends the better for all parties concerned.
Mr. Davies requests that the matter be pressed with the powers that be, until a favourable reply is forthcoming. We are sure that we can rely on your support at this time.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Thomas
Group Secretary
P.S. Mr. Davies has gone out of milk, has refused to sign a Milk Marketing Board letter in order to resign his licence, and is awaiting guidance on his position. We hope some favourable outcome will be forthcoming.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem highlighted in that letter causes difficulties not only to tenant farmers but also to the Powys county council in the management of its substantial smallholdings estate, and that the county council as landlord in that case shares the anxiety of the tenants and feels that it cannot satisfactorily manage its estate until some provisions are made to compensate tenant farmers for coming out of milk production?

Mr. Howells: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. We are both aware that many dairy farmers are tenants with various county councils throughout Britain. I am sure that they will read with interest the advice which the Minister will give.
We in this country have always believed in fair play and justice, and these qualities are manifestly absent from the arrangements proposed for getting rid of milk surpluses in Britain. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, and the Minister responsible for dairy production in Northern Ireland will go to Brussels this spring and make a special plea on behalf of these farmers to ensure that we get an additional quota for small producers who are so dependent on the milk industry for their living. Following this debate, I hope that Ministers will assure us that they will have another look at the content of the Bill and will do what they can to improve it in order to ensure that British dairy producers are well looked after in the future. They deserve that, because they have had a very rough treatment during the last 12 months by this Government.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I entirely agree with the appeal of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) that there should be flexibility in the application of the quota scheme. That is what the debate is all about, even though it is secondary

to the fact that we are generally agreed that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. In that respect, I welcome the measure.
By way of introduction, I hope that my few brief remarks will be considered as an intervention rather than a speech, in the pious hope that as a result it will not be counted against my quota of speeches in Mr. Speaker's computer.
All of us, perhaps, have major reservations about the quota system. It was introduced at the worst possible time of year and with the most regrettable suddenness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has already pointed out, it was also introduced at a time when ADAS, as the organ of the Ministry of Agriculture, was encouraging milk production. Even so, and in the realisation that in saying this the wrath of God if not the NFU might be brought down on my head, it is a miracle that the introduction of the scheme has been so relatively smooth in such a short time.
All of us representing large numbers of dairy farmers were inundated with letters to start with. My response to most of them was, "I appreciate all the problems and difficulties with which you are faced, but let us give it a little time for the system to settle down. After all, it works in some other parts of the world, and there is no reason why it should not work here."
Broadly speaking, the system is beginning to settle down, and we must now look to the future and try to smooth off some of the rough edges. It must be evolved sensibly and realistically so that the disadvantages that exist are tackled in the best possible way in the interests of farmers, and small farmers in particular.
I strongly support the NFU's plea that changes in the system should be introduced to enable an interchange between wholesale and direct sale quotas. Several of my constituents are deeply concerned about this. I know that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are sympathetic, but I hope that somehow they can twist the arms of their ministerial colleagues in the Council of Ministers and obtain some concessions. Presumably this must be of some advantage to European farmers just as much as to our own.
Secondly, there is the question of the transfer of quotas and also the question of the relative importance of the interests of the tenant farmer and the landlord. The National Farmers Union has said that it is vital that quotas should be vested in the producer and should be made saleable on conditions which would include the reasonable protection of the landlord's interests. I agree entirely with that. Quite unwittingly, it is, unfortunately, a fact that the balance of advantage lies with the landlord. I say that in no critical spirit; it is just how it has worked out.
I agree strongly with the Minister that the president of the Country Landowners Association has spoken with maximum responsibility about trying to ensure that his members are as objective as they can be in responding to requests by tenant farmers that they should be allowed to join the outgoers scheme. Nevertheless, as one tenant farmer of the Ministry of Defence in my constituency pointed out, at present the tenant under the system is worse off and the landlord inadvertently is better off, since the quota system enhances the value of a let dairy, not only as of now but looking to the future, should a tenant farmer retire and a collection of potential new tenants tender for that farm. Therefore it is important that the balance should


be redressed, hopefully as a result of agreement between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the one hand and the NFU and the CLA on the other.
My next point is that there is some criticism of the rules and operations of the tribunals. A number of my constituents have complained to me about this aspect of the scheme. One point which was drawn to my attention by one tenant farmer was that the tribunal before which he appeared apparently always based its judgment on numbers of cows rather than on the efficiency of the producer. The farmer who came to see me said that he had invested a considerable amount of money in modernising his dairy with the intention partly of increasing the number of cows in his dairy—he was quite prepared to accept that he would not be allowed to do that—but mostly with the intention of increasing the efficiency of output of his existing herd. He claimed that that point was not fully taken account of by the tribunal before which he appeared.
Another farmer grumbled justifiably about the delays in obtaining decisions from the tribunal. In a letter which he wrote to me recently he said:
The quota scheme came into operation on April 2nd last year. It would seem that I have to wait patiently for nearly ten months before I can have any indication of the parameters upon which I have to plan my business in future. Even then I shall have to wait at least another month before I can even hazard a guess as to the possible cutback in any secondary quota award. Such treatment is quite unacceptable".
I think that we would all sympathise with the point he is making. I realise the difficulties, but what he has done is to emphasise the need for speed in drawing these matters to a conclusion.
Finally, I make a strong plea for the interests of new entrants into farming to be taken fully into account. Many new farmers, whether owner-occupiers or tenants, go into farms which, for one reason or another, are not in good order. Perhaps they have been run down because the previous farmer was getting old and was not quite so enthusiastic as he had been in his younger days. Account has to be taken of considerations of that kind. Therefore I hope it will be possible to give special consideration to new entrants.
In other words, I am emphasising the need for flexibility, common sense and a steady evolution of the scheme. I believe that it is beginning to work reasonably well. I think that, as time goes on, it can work much better. Such a system works perfectly satisfactorily in other parts of the world. I hope that we shall learn from others. I have great confidence that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department will ensure that the scheme continues to make progress.

Mr. James Nicholson: I should like to refer to that part of the Bill which relates to Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, Northern Ireland legislation will go through by Order in Council but will follow fairly closely the Bill which is before us today. As other hon. Members have said, the Bill is a bad Bill. It does not go far enough. I agree with previous hon. Members who said that the Bill does not do sufficient to entice farmers to go out of milk production. There is no tax allowance. If a farmer turns from one part of the industry to another part of the industry, consideration ought to be given to that fact.
May I also draw attention to the serious lack of attendance at this debate by Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office. This is not the first time when a major debate has taken place that not one Minister has appeared on the Government Front Bench to represent Northern Ireland agriculture or to hear what is to be said. This happens continuously. On behalf of those whom I represent and on behalf of all those whom the Ulster Unionist party represents I have to say that we find this deplorable and disgraceful. Especially on a day when Northern Ireland questions have been asked and Ministers are here, it is deplorable that they cannot make time to attend this important debate. It is small wonder that Northern Ireland agriculture is in the position it finds itself in today if Ministers cannot make time to come to listen to this important debate on the most important industry in Northern Ireland.
I should much prefer it if measures such as the outgoers scheme were not necessary. We are putting small farmers out of business. Many of them do not wish to go out of business but they see no alternative. In the longer term this can only have a damaging effect on the industry. Small farmers in Northern Ireland are the backbone of the agricultural industry. Many of them, as I hope to demonstrate, have no alternative. This is to the detriment of dairy farmers in Northern Ireland. Some of these small producers, who are making a living by producing milk from 16 or 25 cows, find that those cows are more important to them than the 200 cows belonging to another farmer. From that point of view the scheme is very important to the small farmer in Northern Ireland.
When the Minister of State addressed the House on 3 July 1984 he said that he proposed to buy up 5 per cent. of the total quota in Northern Ireland because of the large proportion of small producers there. In his reply he said:
We have adopted this approach because we recognise the special problems of Northern Ireland, which include an especially high number of small producers. That is why we have given it favourable terms under the outgoers' scheme." — [Official Report, 3 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 235.]
I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity with which those statements were made, but with hindsight, as the Minister has recognised today, we can say that the scheme never got off the ground in Northern Ireland. It has been a disaster there.
The Department of Agriculture received offers in the region of 4 per cent. of total production and to date has only had firm offers in the region of 10 million litres—one sixth of what the Minister proposed to buy out. Placed against the Minister's original intention to purchase 66 million litres in Northern Ireland, that 10 million litres pales into insignificance.
The Minister recognised today and in earlier debates the importance of the scheme to Northern Ireland dairy production and dairy farmers, especially the small farmers. What proposals has he to rectify the position? Will he assure the House tonight that no farmer in Northern Ireland will be placed at a disadvantage by the scheme's failure?
No doubt many would ask why there was not the same enthusiasm for the outgoers scheme in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom. The main reason, as I outlined earlier, is that the dependence of the small farmer for his livelihood on milk production with no alternative to turn to means that he had to have second, and indeed third, thoughts about even considering entering the


scheme. The fact that the present uptake has been only 10 million litres and that few farmers are likely to come forward in the next few months as they receive their results from the tribunals, shows that they will, if at all possible, try to continue and do their best. Farmers felt that they had no alternative. The will to survive will have to remain with them as they get the results in future.
Most will agree that the famers placed in the worst position of all in Northern Ireland — perhaps in the United Kingdom it would be different—are those with fewer than 40 cows or 200,000 litres. In many instances they were not expanding. They did not contribute in any way to the surplus. The vast majority of them had the same herd size five or six years ago. Consequently, they received no allocation of secondary quota from expansion. It has also been extremely difficult to achieve anything for them under the hardship scheme.
Those with 16 to 25 cows have come out worst of all. For such a farmer the loss of one cow in any given 12 months will hit his income hard. But a farmer with 100 or more cows who loses 10 can sustain that loss. That is why I am most angered about the position of the small farmer in my area.
On 3 July and again today the Minister said:
We shall be aiming specifically to make extra quota available to dairy farmers who produce less than 200,000 litres annually".—[Official Report, 3 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 168.]
Broadly speaking, that is what I have been referring to in my remarks.
I could support that proposal and I have no doubt that my colleagues could too. It would effectively restore the small farmer to the 1983 production level. Will the Minister exercise equality for all and extend the proposal throughout the United Kingdom because it has great merit? If it were extended to Northern Ireland it would go part of the way to solving many of the problems of many of our small farmers.
This afternoon, the Minister said that he hoped to bring farmers in England and Wales in the region of over 200,000 litres up to the 1983 production level. For Scotland he referred to figures—I stand to be corrected — in the region of 250,000 litres. Northern Ireland is entitled to the same consideration and to the same proposal. I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with that point.
I want to take this opportunity to assure the Minister that I do not propose to refer to the long-debated 65,000 tonnes which we never received in the first place. But that does not mean for one moment that we accept the situation or agree with the explanations which have been given. The issue is still at the forefront of our minds. Instead, I want to deal with the buy-out scheme in particular.
The main effect of quotas is when they fall on the shoulders of those who may be forced to pay levy at the end of the time. To the best of my knowledge Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom at present where levy is due. It is hard to get up-to-date figures because of the holiday but the best figure that is available is for the first six months where collection is due. At that stage farmers were due to pay over £5 million in levies in Northern Ireland. Agriculture in Northern Ireland in the present climate, certainly dairy producers, cannot afford that sort of figure. It is bad enough to have to pay the co-responsibility levy, which should not have been imposed in the first place and is no longer achieving what it was brought in for, but it is even worse to have to pay the levy.

Unfortunately, some farmers are beginning to come to the conclusion that it will disappear. Let me make it clear—I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies—that it will not disappear and farmers will eventually have to pay that levy at whatever level is finally worked out.
I have attended a fair number of tribunals and panels while representing my constituents over the past couple of months. Some farmers are in an unfortunate position. There are those who, under the regulations, do not qualify for claims for development, hardship or epizootic disease. To coin an old phrase, they have fallen between two stools. Everyone recognises that they should receive something, but there is nothing. There is no way under the regulations by which they can receive any consideration for quota at all. They are mainly the medium size farmers with between 50 and 80 cows in a herd. They are the farmers who appear to be hit hardest.
As has been said, no Government have the right to put a farmer, who has to change within 15 days or even one day, out of business, and certainly the EEC has no right to do that.
I implore the Minister to give further serious consideration to the plight of Northern Ireland's small dairy farmers and to introduce new sound proposals which will enable us to tell our farming constituents that this House recognises their difficulties and is reacting accordingly.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on an important subject. I welcome the Bill because the outgoers scheme was announced in reply to a letter from, and parliamentary question tabled by, me.
As my right hon. Friend said at the outset of his remarks, the scheme has been introduced because of the category of small farmers whose land can be used for nothing but dairy farming. Faced with the dramatic cut imposed on them by the quota scheme, some of them, perhaps because of the stage they have reached in their farming careers, have no alternative but to get out, and it is right that the Community should have a scheme to help them leave agricultural production.
Still well to the fore in the minds of all hon. Members who represent areas with a heavy concentration of dairy farmers is the suddenness with which the scheme was introduced and the shock that it presented to dairy farmers, not to mention the difficulties they encountered in trying to plan their businesses following that shock. However, I do not share many of the criticisms that have been directed — particularly from the Labour Front Bench, although there was an element of tongue-in-cheek in some of those criticisms—at my right hon. Friend.
I direct my criticism at the Council of Ministers, at the EEC, because I have great sympathy for a dairy farming constituent who wrote to me during this dramatic time saying, in effect, "I read the writing on the wall. Some years ago I realised that such a scheme would have to be imposed because I, like my dairy farming colleagues, recognised that we could not continue, as members of the EEC, indefinitely over-producing. I have not pushed up my production and I hope that you will not introduce a scheme that will help bail out those who have done so." I have sympathy with his foresight, but we also have a responsibility to those who were directed to increase production under some of the development schemes.
Any institution such as the EEC which is responsible for running an industry such as dairying and which gives those working in that industry so little time to prepare for change — change introduced in a sudden, almost retrospective, way—leads one to question the viability of that institution. If the CAP cannot be changed in a more business-like, gradual and farsighted way, we are right to question the institution. People who run businesses must be able to plan their future in a better way than dairy farmers have been able to do.
We must consider the effect of such sudden change not only on dairy farmers but on ancillary industries. Some of the most heart-rending cries to which I have listened have come from those engaged, for example, in drainage and dredging, industries that help with the clay soil of Dorset, which is suitable for few other forms of agricultural production.
I had hoped that a way would be found to resolve the problem of the quota belonging to the landlord and therefore remaining with the land. I hope that the Government will continue to devote to this the attention that they were devoting last autumn to securing agreement between representatives of landlords and tenants so that the quota can be transferred from one genuine producer to another. That is particularly relevant to tenants of county council farms, where it should be easier to arrange such a compromise.
Reference has been made to the difficult position faced by those who raised their production under one of the development schemes, who have been, in a preliminary way, entitled to secondary quota but who have been told that that quota must be cut. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see what he can do to help people in that position, particularly those who, as part of raising their production, have changed their breed of cows. There seems to be no provision for farmers who have changed from one breed to another, yet that category of farmer is being unfairly treated.
I support what has been said about the interchange between wholesale and direct sale quotas. I appreciate that in other EEC countries this alleviation of the scheme might be abused more than would be the case here, but that problem should not be incapable of resolution and I hope that my right hon. Friend will find a way of dealing with the matter.
May we be told what other EEC countries are doing and how far they have progressed in implementing their schemes? United Kingdom dairy farmers are watching how their counterparts are applying the schemes in their countries. If they are not implementing them adequately, we shall have to revise the way in which we look at the whole issue.
I consider the Bill to be an essential element in making the quota scheme fair and tolerable and in helping those who leave dairy farming, and for that reason I wish the measure a speedy passage.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I take issue with the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) on only one point. He was critical of the way in which milk quotas had been introduced by the European Community and

suggested, in effect, that we should consider the whole decision-making process of implementing measures of this kind.
To be fair to the EEC, one sees from examining the documents that the Commission must be given credit for saying that a quota system would have to be introduced some time before it was implemented by the British Government. Our Government, in splendid isolation at one time, argued that the whole matter could be resolved by the price of milk. The result was the the British Government had to make the change overnight, whereas the European Community had recognised that a measure such as this would have to be introduced. It is worth getting on the record exactly who made the overnight change. It was not the European Community but our Government.
This Bill is of a type I have seen all too frequently in my years here—one against which one would love to vote but cannot do so. It offers far too little to the dairy farmers, but to vote against it would be to give them nothing. Being a good, sensible west country man, given the choice between very little and nothing, it would not take me long to make up my mind which of the options I would prefer. However, while I am willing to go along with the Bill, it still gives cause for much dissatisfaction.
If I had to describe the Bill in a few lines, I would describe it as a Bill to buy out small producers to help to satisfy other small producers. The net result in our dairy producing areas will be fewer small milk producers. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and my other colleagues on the Liberal Bench take the view that this Bill is anti the small farmer. In the end, he will be annihilated and will be made an even rarer part of our mixed economy when those of us who live in the country know just how important he is. The Government could have dealt with the matter differently if they had so chosen.
There is no point in rehearsing the economic effects on rural areas. If I wanted to select 20 or 30 hon. Members who knew and understood the effect of such measures on the rural areas, I would select the 30 hon. Members who are in the Chamber now. Sometimes I wish that I could press a button to move out all the hon. Members who are here and bring in the ones who are not interested enough to come to listen to the debate, because they are the ones we have to convince of the logic of the argument. I fear that the problems in the industry have only just started.
One of the most unfortunate parts of the Bill, and the regulations that go with it, is the Government's decision on the relevant merits of the tenant and the landlord. I am aware that there are just about as many relationships between tenants and landlords as there are tenants and landlords. In some cases, the landlord has built the cowhouse, invested the capital and ensured that the farm is efficient, and should have control over the quota. However, the Government have not said that they will recognise the landlord's position in that case, but have legislated on the basis that in every tenant-landlord relationship it is always the landlord who has invested the money to build up the farm.
The legislation automatically gives an absolute veto to the landlord regardless of the circumstances and the use of the outgoers scheme. There is no logic in that, and I suspect that it is a political reflection of who really has power in the Government. Given an argument between the Country Landowners Association and the National


Farmers Union, it is hard luck on the NFU. The Government come down on the side of their friends and the powerful, not of the weak. The Government should have given the presumption — not the veto — to the tenant so that the landlord could have taken his case on appeal to argue it out and if he had made the capital investment he should have control over the quota.
I shall use this opportunity — I think that I am just within the bounds of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker — to draw the Minister's attention to a tragedy in my constituency, which is based on a misunderstanding and which worries me a great deal. It concerns direct sellers. If anything in this legislation is genuinely unsatisfactory, it is the way in which direct sellers have been treated. One of the great enterprises in my county is selling Cornish cream. I was brought up on what is known in Cornwall as thunder and lightning. For those who are not initiated in the delights of this dietary lack of control, I explain that one takes a nice piece of bread and generously spreads across it some Cornish cream until the bread is no longer porous. One then spreads a nice lot of treacle over the top. If ever any hon. Member wants to put on weight, there is nothing in the world to beat thunder and lightning.
The selling of Cornish cream is a great enterprise and many people have set up substantial mail delivery systems. Over Christmas a lot of Cornish cream is sold over the counter. However, it is sad that in Cornwall there are many examples of people selling Cornish cream direct who did not appear to realise that the crux is whether they are over quota on direct sales and not whether they are over quota altogether. A number of farmers in my constituency have been successful this Christmas in selling Cornish cream and have now discovered that they are wildly over quota on direct sales and are therefore likely to be penalised quite seriously.
The confusion has arisen as a result of rumours. I read articles in The Economist and other magazines and have raised the matter myself. The rumours were to the effect that, although a farmer may be over quota this year, because of the drought and the initial reaction to this legislation, Britain was under quota and therefore there was no likelihood of any farmers paying any levy. Therefore, it was thought that that would apply to those selling their product direct. I hope that the Minister will clarify this matter, because I fear that the farmers in my constituency who thought that are wrong and could end up paying for large quotas. I shall draw the attention of the Minister to one or two cases where farmers are in danger of going bankrupt and, given the vagaries of the mail, send him some information.
The lunacy is that if the farmer who is in real danger of going to the wall had merely taken his milk down to the dairy he would be under quota and so in no difficulty. However, because he had the initiative to build up a clientele that would buy his milk—albeit in the form of cream — and to post it off to the customers and to collect the money, he is likely to be fined. Between now and the day that the levy is to be collected, the House and the European Community must be made to realise that that is mad, and that something needs to be done. I give the Minister early warning that a number of these cases will be brought to his attention. I hope that something can be done to relieve such difficulties.
Some interesting questions were put to the Minister about the outgoers scheme and the attitude that he showed in replying to those questions was more revealing than the

replies. There is no point in having the appeals procedure — with the hundreds, if not thousands, of hours spent on it — to allocate a number of farmers extra milk but then in the final analysis to tell them that, although they have won the allocation, they still cannot produce that milk. That is manifestly lunatic. We do not have the final figures, so we do not quite know, but if in the end a further quota has been allocated but is not available because there is not enough of the outgoers scheme, the Minister must go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get some more money to expand the scheme. To do anything else would be lunacy of the type with which the House is not normally associated. The milk can and must be allocated through the outgoers scheme, and the Government should provide the money.
I recognise that the Minister has some difficulty in getting money out of the Chancellor, but he need only present the House with the opportunity to make a decision on this matter. If the Minister allowed us to vote on whether we want another £10 million or £25 million—the amount is no larger than that — to alleviate this problem, I believe that hon. Members would go through the Lobby to support that provision. If we are given only one of these ghastly negative orders, to which we have become so accustomed over the years, we would have to vote for either a little or nothing and would not be able to give the Minister the backing he needs to go to the Chancellor. I look for an assurance that, if the figures do not match, an attempt will be made to persuade the Chancellor to produce the pennies required.
My point about tribunals is made more on the basis of my role as a representative politician than anything else. There is a number of dairy farmers in my constituency. I have to tell a dairy farmer who explains his case at some length to me that there is no point in me, as his elected Member of Parliament, taking that case to the House and trying to convince the Minister that the tribunal has made a mistake. The Minister has so tied up the regulations that the tribunal is free to act. Even if one could convince the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that, for instance, Harry Bloggs at Rosudgeon was unfairly treated, the Minister has so tied up the regulations in this quango—such is the Government's enthusiasm to transfer the power to make decisions from the elected representatives to appointed quangos—that my constituent could not win his case. That is a denial of the purpose of the Bill and of democracy. The Minister has made it impossible for us to argue our case because of the way in which he has tied up the regulations. That is as outrageous a part of the legislation as any other. I suspect that that is something with which the Minister will have to deal repeatedly.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) referred to the co-responsibility levy. I remember reading the reasons given for introducing this levy. I cannot say that I was ever enthusiastic about the levy, and I no longer see any reason for it. There is a quota regime throughout Europe. I am not especially against the quota regime for solving this horrible problem which should not have grown so large. All the reasons given five or six years ago for introducing the co-responsibility levy have now vanished, yet the levy is still collected. Why? Where is the money going?
I look to the Minister to campaign within the European Community for the scrapping forthwith of the levy. That is one of the few steps that can be taken to give the farmers a real increase during the next three years in the value of


their production. If that is not done, there will be an immense and continuous argument in the House about the full impact of the three-year freeze. Why is the co-responsibility levy collected? Is the Minister trying to get rid of it?

Mr. George Walden: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go on about thunder and lightning — perhaps we could settle for a little fine drizzle instead. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) suggested that it was a miracle that the levy system had got off the ground. It would be churlish if we did not pay some tribute to the tenacity of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for getting it off the ground. It would be wrong not to be frank about the fact that my right hon. Friend has benefited from a certain amount of divine intervention in getting his miracle off the ground in the shape of the weather. I am slightly worried that we may be developing a false sense of security. Who knows what the weather will be like next year and the year after? That point is often made to me by my constituents.
My right hon. Friend was against the levies because of the inflexibility they imposed upon production. The keynote of this debate has often been the need for flexibility. Flexibility is needed in three respects. First — I join hon. Members on both sides of the House—there should be flexibility with small farmers. I am in favour of the outgoers scheme which provides a type of flexibility. We are asking small farmers to go out of business to encourage other small farmers to stay in business, and that is a paradox. A number of my constituents have said to me that it would be more sensible to raise the threshold to encourage farmers with 60 or 80 cows and who can put their land to alternative use, to go out of business, thereby enabling a number of smaller farmers to stay in business. We should not forget that it is the small farmers who do not have an alternative use to which they can put their land because such acreages do not provide viable alternatives.
Secondly, I should encourage my right hon. Friend to continue to do all he can in Brussels to obtain elbow room on transferability of quota, because that is an important element of the flexibility for which we are looking. Thirdly, I believe that my right hon. Friend should not discard the possibility of being slightly more flexible in dealing with his colleagues in Europe. Because we have this scheme—no one has suggested any other scheme that will work — we must ensure that it operates fairly and quickly. We must not be lulled into a false sense of security because of the way in which matters have gone this year. Although we are right to tell our colleagues in Europe that we will not collect the levy until they sort themselves out, we should be careful about the way in which we play our hand in future, especially when we consider that, for example, the French owe 35 million ecu and we theoretically owe 2·9 million ecu. We do not want to be used by the French as a justification for their not paying that large sum. The object of the exercise is to get them to pay and not to bring down the whole levy system. No one has anything to put in this system's place.
A small farmer, who does not have a battery of secretaries but whose wife acts as secretary, may come

into my surgery and spread out before me many incomprehensible documents. He seems to understand them better than I do, being more intelligent than I am. It is extremely difficult to grapple with these documents. I beg my right hon. Friend to do everything he can in the cause of simplicity. No doubt my right hon. Friend remembers what was said by Helmut Schmidt about monetary compensation. He said that only two people in the world understood how monetary compensation amounts work—one was Helmut Schmidt and the other was the deputy governor of the Hungarian national bank. It would be a pity, given that we have no alternative but to implement quotas, for the quotas to be in danger of collapsing under the weight of bureaucracy.

Mr. David Harris: I am happy to take part in the debate so soon after my colleague from Cornwall, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The hon. Gentleman was right to concentrate on aspects which especially affect our county, particularly the subject of Cornish cream on which I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Minister who, I believe, must do something to alleviate the problem.
I take issue, however, with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Truro that the Bill was somehow anti small farmers. I believe that that is quite wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have indulged in one of his famous rants, as he describes them, if things had been the other way round. If those with first call on the outgoers scheme had been the larger farmers I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have put up a great show of wrath, fury and indignation and convinced the entire House that small farmers should have first call on the scheme if they wished to use it. Therefore, I believe that the Government's approach is right in that respect.

Mr. Penhaligon: I believe that the Government should have skewed the original reductions in production against the big farmers, thus putting the load on the top and saving a strong small farmers' community, if not for all time at least for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman himself would agree with that.

Mr. Harris: I do indeed. It is no secret that the hon. Gentleman and I, with others Members from Cornwall, had a most interesting and informative meeting with NFU representatives from our county. I understand, too, that Cornwall was by far the best represented county in the delegation that lobbied the House today, showing the importance of this matter to our county. I venture to suggest, however, that if the hon. Member for Truro had expressed the same view at that meeting the NFU would have been split all ways. Although he and I agree with such an approach, I suspect that the farming community as a whole would have been far from unanimous. That is the reality of the situation.
I therefore sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Minister, who was unfortunate enough to have been left holding the parcel when the music stopped. As he is no longer present, I should also say that I believe that there has been a great deal of unfair criticism of him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) has said, the real culprit is not the Minister or the Commission but the Council of Ministers, of which my right hon. Friend is just one member. Successive British Ministers


and the Commission have urged the Council of Ministers to face this problem. Had the Council of Ministers done so, the whole business of restraining output could have been carried out in a sane, sensible way without all the aggravation and the awful uncertainty which have made the past year the most dreadful year for agriculture since the war.
Our collective job now is to try to get some sanity back into the situation. I believe that we shall have to live with quotas for a very long time. That makes it all the more important to try to sort out some of the nonsense in the present scheme. In this respect, the House owes a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who first drew attention to the vexed question of tenant and landlord. As many hon. Members have said, the Government must give further thought to this. Again, of course, it is to some extent in the hands of the Community. Here, too, the hon. Member for Truro was not quite right, as the original regulation on which the scheme is based makes it clear that the quotas must be invested in the land. I believe that we must change that. I agree with the hon. Member for Truro that we must ensure greater flexibility and a much fairer system, certainly in the south-west, although I gather from speeches so far that the relationship between tenant and landlord is a major source of concern in many other parts of the country.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to answer the following question. When will the Government be in a position to redistribute to small farmers the quota made available as a result of the outgoers scheme? When can those small farmers be certain that their production levels will be restored? They are entitled to an assurance on that. After such a traumatic year, there is an urgent need to restore confidence in agriculture and especially in the dairy sector.
In this context, I echo the plea of so many hon. Members for the immediate abolition of the co-responsibility levy. When I tackled my right hon. Friend the Minister on this some weeks ago I was somewhat disappointed, as he gave the impression that, although he would press for a reduction in the levy, he would not—for reasons that I did not understand — press for its complete abolition. The hon. Member for Truro asked why the levy was still in place. It is because the Community looks to the levy as a source of funds for its hard-pressed budget. That is absolutely wrong and we have a duty to see that the levy is scrapped as quickly as possible. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State can assure us today that that will be one of the Government's aims in the next round of negotiations, he will do much to restore confidence in the farming industry.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill, although I do not believe that it goes far enough. I believe that more must be done and I add my voice to those who have pressed my right hon. Friend the Minister to go to the Chancellor for more money. My right hon. Friend said that the Bill involved considerable amounts of public money. With respect, that is absolute nonsense. We are talking about £50 million spread over five years and we are dealing with the future of a vital industry. I believe that for a comparatively small sum of money we could make the scheme really work. That is what we must set out to achieve.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am glad to be able to contribute briefly to this important little debate on a mopping-up Bill designed to straighten out the existing situation.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on their alacrity in getting the outgoers scheme under way, providing an important anchor of confidence for the industry at a time of turmoil, anguish and anxiety. The fact that the scheme was announced so quickly and was adequately financed, at least for the first stage, was most reassuring.
As the amount of money involved is sometimes described as very little, it is worth putting the matter in context. It is nice to know that the Ministry provided the second most generous scheme within the Community because, if I read the AGRA Europe publication of 29 June 1984 accurately, France is the highest contributor in this respect with a support of £88 million, we come second with a support of £50 million and Germany, which is sometimes vaunted as showing a more generous response to this problem, comes in a poor third with £25 million. I think the response to that German scheme indicates its lack of acceptability.
Much has been said in the debate about flexibility. In the context of quota and the outgoers scheme, flexibility is the key. To maintain flexibility somehow or other within the rigid framework of the overall quota is the fundamental problem that has to be dealt with and resolved. In that structure, I am glad that it has been clearly enunciated by my right hon. Friend that protection of the smaller producer is the most important consideration. I have given much thought to how it might be better undertaken, but I think that the smaller producer on balance has been protected best. Those on the level of 40 cows or below wishing to stay in have been given, or will be given, the bias of support while those on the 40-cow level who are seeking to go out will also be given the balance of preference because of the lack of viability of their particular holding or circumstances.
Another point that has not been made so far in the debate concerning the small producer relates to the movement of quota. Many requests have been made for more flexibility, for a greater ability for quota to move. The National Farmers Union has made a specific request for the saleability of quota, subject to certain safeguards. This worries me. The decision to attach quota to the land seems to me to protect the smaller producer against the depredations of the larger producer, who would have the resources to buy in quota if it were freely available on the market. Therefore, to link quota to the land gives the best possible defence to the smaller producer and ensures that it is not possible for quota to accumulate in the hands of a few large producers.
One or two problems have to be accepted as a consequence. There has been considerable mention of the question of tenancies. I note the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), but I think that the answer lies the other way round. If it can be shown that the tenant has made the investment in the dairy, he should have the right of appeal against the landlord rather than the other way round. That secures the fundamental position of the quota being linked to the land. The right way round to tackle the flexibility of quota seems to me


to be in terms of leasing. I wonder whether the Minister, in winding up, can give the House some indication of what thought has been given to the development of the concept of leasing of quota on an unsecured basis so that it can return to the land when the circumstances indicate that it should do so. That would give the necessary flexibility, put the proper value on quota and thus satisfy all the requirements.
As a final point on flexibility, the hon. Member for Truro gave the most graphic description of the absurdities that will come about as a result of the inflexibility between wholesale quota and direct sales quota. In my view it is vital that this problem be resolved. We cannot have a situation in which successful sales are penalised; they must be recognised and encouraged. Successful sales mean consumption which has to be set against the present difficult market scene.
My penultimate point relates to what I referred to last May as the knock-on effect. I bear very much in mind the fact that I come from a beef-producing as well as a dairy-producing part of the world. In terms of substitution, the development of the beef herd is obviously important as, indeed, will be the lower production of commercial beef resulting from the dairy herd. It is essential that there be full maintenance of the confidence in that sector of the market for the foreseeable future. I must underline the importance of sustaining the variable beef premium scheme because, as I have said before, the variable beef premium scheme puts beef on plates, and it gets beef down throats and eaten, which cannot be bad, and it also provides the confidence that is necessary to ensure the future of the beef industry at a time when it particularly needs it.
As to the future, my right hon. Friend said that at present no further schemes are planned. When this scheme is completed and all the quotas have been allocated, will he undertake a formal review? I am sure that every other commentator, magazine and, indeed, official body will be carrying out the same exercise, but it would be helpful if the Minister would undertake a full review of the point we have reached to establish whether it is appropriate to consider taking in a further scheme. If he does bring in a further scheme, may I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) when he intervened in the early stages of the debate to ask that the regulations be brought forward in draft form so that they can be considered and possibly amended in the light of debate in the House? The value of that process was heavily underlined at the start of this whole wretched exercise when the milk quota regulations in my view were far more suitable and enhanced in quality as a consequence of such a process. I look forward to that and to the satisfactory and speedy passage of the Bill so that the situation can be properly formalised.

Mr. Tony Speller: I have listened with great interest to a debate during which the Benches of the official Opposition have been empty. I am not surprised. Her Majesty's Government are doing all the Opposition's work for them. They believe in quota controls and all the apparatus of the State, which we are now imposing on one of the last efficient industries in the country, the agriculture industry. I love the fascinating way in which

hon. Members who have not been in the House very long today criticise my comments because by their non-attendance they are bringing about the destruction of the industry. Our farmers have the capacity to feed the hungry not only of this nation but of other parts of the world. I am saddened that, in the debate, hon. Members have shown gloom, some despondency and some petty self-congratulation while none of them have queried the fact that in the House we are attempting to go back to a situation, that I thought we left many years ago, in which this Government—and I am ashamed because it is the Government whom I generally support—revert to this terrible system of control upon control.
What do quotas mean? They mean things that are fixed from a paper basis; they mean inflexibility. Of course one can always appeal to a tribunal, which means more tribunals. What do they penalise? They penalise the efficient. Who else do they penalise? They penalise those who wish to grow, to expand, to bring their families into the business to make that growth. What do they encourage? Bureaucracy, of course; form-filling, of course—indeed, much form-filling by farmers who are far better at growing food. The bureaucracy that we are grafting on—for want of a better agricultural word—is one that I find totally unacceptable and, frankly, shameful.
It is quite easy for us to say that we can do nothing and tonight we shall have no vote. All right, there is no vote against this concept because we say that the concept is accepted and we are part of a club. The Government, of course, will not vote against it and the Opposition do not wish to vote against it. Even the Liberal party, which has been present in some profusion, will not vote against it. So we accept, and what do our farmers do? They have to accept it, because we have made the ruling. We, here at Westminster, and they, down the line, will bear the consequences. The consequences are easy to see. We are surrounded by empty green Benches. Soon in Devonshire and North Devon I shall be surrounded by empty green fields because this form of system always supports those who are big enough to have an accountant and to employ a surveyor and who do not have to have the lady of the house do the paperwork. We shall empty our countryside, just as we have emptied other parts of the country. We have pretty well destroyed our manufacturing industry. Everybody will tell me that this is in the cause of greater efficiency—greater Japanese or German efficiency.
So we are now set fair to destroy perhaps the last really superb working part of Britain—the small green-field farm plus, of course, farmer and family. As they are destroyed, so the village, and with it, the village school and pub, are destroyed. In my part of the world more people live off agriculture than practise it. It is not just the farmer or the rapidly disappearing farm worker who is affected, but the man who services the tractor or who sells it, or perhaps the man who sells the car, or the concentrate. It is the professional advisers who are affected. In the small towns in areas such as Devonshire we are sentencing them all, not to a lingering death, but to a fairly quick one.
The big man can, of course, improvise and move into other areas. A big farm is usually fairly flexible and has the advisers and adaptability. But on a small farm a man is trained for a lifelong job and it is that or nothing. It is no different in many industrial areas, where skilled men no longer have work because their skills are no longer needed.
Time is always short just before the wind-up speeches, but I am saddened that there has been no more temper in the debate. Mention has been made of the CLA and the NFU. I have not had the CLA on to me, but the NFU has been here in strength. I know how it feels. It is aware that the big man will survive because he always does. But I thought that Parliament and this House were meant to stand up for and look after the small man. I am not prepared to see the people whom I seek to represent destroyed economically because people say, "Oh well, what can we do about it? We belong to a club." I sometimes wonder these days whether that club is worth belonging to.
I shall make my points briefly. My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) cannot be here today. He is in his constituency dealing with farmers and farmers' interests. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, if £25 million or £50 million is all that is required from national resources, that is very little compared with the vast sums—I play it from Left to Right—that we waste on miners who do not care if their pits fall to pieces, or compared with the vast sums we spend on defence where many of us believe that there are savings that can be made. When we consider the sheer petty-cashery needed to save the way of life of the small farmer, it is unbelievable that a Government who were elected on the promises that they made should no longer be prepared to honour them.
There is to be no Division in which one can show one's shame at the way in which we are treating the industry.

Mr. Home Robertson: Why not?

Mr. Speller: Alas, one hon. Member is not enough to divide the House. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) who shouts out from a sendentary position is too tired to contribute to the debate. But I, for one, am deeply saddened by the tenor of the debate. I know that we are stuck with the system, but some of us now wonder whether, just because we accept the system as it exists, we must also accept that it is good. If it is not good perhaps we should consider changing it, instead of talking about making amendments in Committee or dividing in Committee. We all know very well that in Committee the majority wins.
Today there appears to be a minority of one who says that we are not winning but losing as we destroy the best things in Britain—the countryside, the small farm, and all the beauty of life that goes with them. If we destroy them, we shall be as guilty as those who, over a hundred years ago in Scotland and not so long ago in the north of England, made desolate what was once beautiful thriving countryside. This evening we are contributing to that desolation.

Mr. Michael Stern: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak in the rather unfamiliar surroundings of a debate on agriculture. I understand that the Bill deals with compensation to farmers for the imposition of quotas. I am sure that even my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) would support that principle. But for those of us not wholly bound up with farming, the Bill does not go nearly far enough.
Until the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for Devon, North no one seemed to recognise that agriculture consists of more than just farmers. Indeed, the ancillary industries which depend on farming have been hit far more severely as a result of milk quotas than any dairy farmer who is to receive compensation under the Bill.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to a company called BOCM Silcock Limited in Avonmouth, in my constituency. It is a mill that manufactures feeding stuffs. For historical reasons, more than 80 per cent. of its production consists of cattle feed. As a result of quotas, that mill will close in the first quarter of 1986 with loss of employment for up to 199 staff. Their jobs will disappear as a result of the imposition of milk quotas. Where in the Bill is there compensation for them?
I am not talking about an inefficient company that is giving an excuse for going out of business. Prior to the imposition of quotas it was economic. The prices of its products were comparable with those elsewhere in the EEC. It achieved a 10 per cent. productivity gain in the years since 1976. It was not overmanned, and shed more than 100 staff in the same period. It was not undercapitalised and in recent years it has built a new silo, a new blending plant and additional bulk loading facilities. In addition, 50 per cent. of its extrusion presses have been replaced. It has improved its warehousing and has computerised vast areas of its operation.
Prior to quotas the company had the option of upgrading its manufacturing unit, and, given turnover continuing at former levels, it would have been economic to do so over a period of two or three years. But then came milk quotas, and in one year its turnover fell by 28 per cent. Consequently, of course, the level of return on capital is unacceptable, the upgrading option is no longer economic and the mill will close. It is worth considering what that will mean to those involved.
All the speeches today have been about people, but they have all been about farmers. I should like to widen the debate's horizons a little and to talk about workers at that mill. The average age of the production staff is 50 or more. The majority of them live within 10 miles of the mill. Within that same area unemployment stands at 30 per cent., which is not large enough to qualify for development area status. There is little alternative employment for those people, and what jobs there are pay substantially lower rates of pay. Therefore, as a result of the imposition of milk quotas, most of them face permanent unemployment.
The average age of the clerical staff is a little over 40. They are mainly female and, because of the special procedures within the mill, most of them will need retraining before they can even consider obtaining another job. But because it is not a development area and because there is no special provision for those parts of the agriculture industry that are not termed "farming", they cannot obtain any retraining grants from the EEC, and there is no provision in the Bill to provide them.
In addition, just to make things slightly worse, the company is a reasonable employer and so will be able to offer the staff some additional redundancy over and above the basic statutory scheme. However, it can do so only on condition that between 80 and 90 per cent. of them stay on until the last day before the mill closes. Therefore, they will not have the option of going out and looking for work. They will have to stay until they are made unemployed.
I am aware that the outgoers scheme is not designed as a form of social payment and I am not suggesting that it should be. In principle, I support the scheme, but it is designed to compensate those involved in agriculture who have suffered as a result of the Government's action in accepting quotas. The Government accepted quotas and are now saying, "It is fair to use taxpayers' money to compensate those who will suffer most." Why should only farmers be compensated? We are told that farmers are entitled to compensation because they have had to cut production by 9 per cent. over the country as a whole. The mill has had to cut production by 28 per cent. Therefore, why should farmers alone be entitled to compensation?
Some farmers are losing the whole of their livelihood because of the quota scheme. As the Minister rightly says, those farmers for whom we have most sympathy are most entitled to compensation. Some farmers will lose only part of their livelihoods, but the mill workers will lose the whole of theirs. Therefore, why are they not entitled to compensation?
Why is the Bill blinkered so that it deals only with compensation to one small part of a large industry? Why does it not take into account the effects of the Government's action on other parts of the industry? The Government rightly set up the principle that those people most affected by Government action should be compensated. For that reason generous compensation was offered to miners, dockers and steel workers. It is now being offered to farmers. Why is it not being offered to the entire agriculture industry?
If the Government wish to compensate only part of the industry, they must accept that they will not earn the support of hon. Members who are troubled by the suffering in other parts of the industry.

Mr. Home Robertson: I have already drafted an amendment to be tabled in Committee which would provide compensation for people who lose their jobs because of the scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be nominated as a member of the Committee, and, if so, will he vote for such an amendment?

Mr. Stern: No, I do not expect to be nominated as a member of the Committee. However, when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, unless it _contains provision to compensate people such as those in my constituency I have described, I shall continue to be unable to support it.

Mr. Richard Alexander: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. My main criticism of the debate is that it has so far been largely a west country benefit. As I am the only east midland hon. Member to make a speech I shall put our case.
The outgoers scheme was introduced to encourage some dairy farmers to go out of milk production to release quota which can be redistributed to farmers who wish to stay in milk production. The problem is that the present scheme is heavily over-subscribed. On behalf of dairy farmers in my constituency I add my voice to those who urge the Government to extend the present scheme. That would encourage more farmers to cease milk production, and thus make available additional quota for those who wish to remain in production and make a good living at it.
That would particularly help producers who have made application to the quota tribunal as development cases. I understand that there will not be a cut in the base year quota awards and that if the present outgoer scheme is successful, there will not be a cut in the exceptional hardship awards made by the tribunals.
We now understand that substantial cuts of awards to development cases, perhaps of 30 or 40 per cent., may be made. Hardest hit if that happens will be the younger farmers and farmers who, before the imposition of quotas, made long-term financial commitments to develop their farming businesses. They feel that before the imposition of quotas they were encouraged by Government agricultural policies to expand, only to find literally overnight that their plans were in ruins and that no alternatives were available to them.
Dairy farmers in my constituency and in my county feel strongly that milk production quotas should be transferable either by sale or by lease, subject to any necessary restrictions and regulations. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on this. The linking of quotas to the land puts farmers in a straitjacket. They feel that that should apply to all farmers in the European Community, but they query whether it does and feel that a more robust attitude on the part of my right hon. Friend the Minister in Brussels could relieve them of the adverse effects of that straitjacket.
I shall be interested to hear whether my right hon. Friend is having discussions with his colleagues in the EC about removing that straitjacket. It can do no harm to his Department, nor to the financial position of this country, and my farmers advise me that it could do good to them if it were removed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in his reply that he will do so.

Mr. Brynmor John: We have had an interesting debate on a matter which has affected the countryside. All hon. Members will have been told about cases that have created great hardship. However, until the new milk production quotas come into existence, we shall not know the full extent of hardship. There will be a greater effect on rural communities than any hon. Member can guess.
I do not say this in a pejorative sense, but our debate has been rather like a Committee stage, in that all hon. Members, with one exception, have welcomed the Bill, however reluctantly, because it gives a measure of justice to people who, through no fault of their own, will lose their livelihoods. Therefore, we have concentrated on trying to improve the Bill by making suggestions about flexibility.
There has been a fair measure of consensus about those measures. Pleas for flexibility are all very well—I agree with almost every point that was made — but the Government's response to those pleas is what is important. I hope that they will not take our reluctance to vote against the measure, which cushions people who are undergoing hardship, as an excuse for saying that their plan is perfect in every way and that hon. Members will not vote against the Bill because its underlying purpose is good. I hope that the Government will listen to the suggestions of ways to improve the scheme and act on them.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) alone went to the root and branch of the Bill in his criticisms. As he is now absent, may I say through the columns of Hansard that he must not take fireworks night too literally


when he makes a controversial speech. This evening he lit the blue touch paper and retired. He has left the Chamber and we cannot consult or debate with him. He would have done much better, after firing such a volley, to wait in the Chamber to hear what hon. Members have to say in reply.
The state and the farming industry have been in partnership since the second world war, with the full assent of farmers. That has greatly benefited the country. On this occasion, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for whatever reason—I accept the defence of him by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) — changed at short notice the encouragement that the Government have offered for more than 40 years. However, I do not take too seriously his defence of the Minister, who is not so tender a flower as to need people rushing to his aid.
The House should remember that two or three days before he attended the meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Minister pledged undying opposition to the scheme. The only historical parallel that I have been able to find to such a volte face is that of the Duke of Marlborough, who left London at the head of James II's forces and returned at the head of William and Mary's army. With such a short time span and such a radical change in everything that had been expected of dairy farmers for many decades, it is no wonder that there was introduced in the industry instability which bordered on panic for a considerable time.
The introduction of the scheme was an unpleasant shock, and many of us believe that its implementation has been chaotic. There is no question but that many more farmers have appealed against the quotas allocated to them than was foreseen by the Ministry. The Government should have expected many farmers who were faced with the loss of their livelihoods to appeal against the quotas. As a consequence, the tribunals, from their inadequate beginnings, have been stepped up, although they are way behind with their work. We do not know whether their work will be completed by February or March. In the interim, no one has been certain of anything, which must cause great dissatisfaction in the industry. It is ironic that, due partly to the drought that afflicted us last year, Britain will not fulfil its quota.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said in opening, we want a specific assurance that under-production this year will not lead to further pressure for an even lower quota. The panic with which bodies of an official or semi-official nature are trying to encourage farmers to increase their milk production for the rest of the year suggests to the industry that that might he a possibility.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that the Bill does not cover all those who will have to leave the dairy industry as a result of the quota scheme agreed by the Minister in Brussels. First, it does not cover tenants, unless with the landlord's consent. I hope to say a little more about that later. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian said that the Opposition would table an amendment seeking an extension of the scheme to cover all those who work in the dairy industry. He used herdsmen as an example, but we believe that the Bill should cover those who work in the dairy products industry, which will have problems different from those of a normal business that fails. It was not that industry's fault that the quota system was agreed; it could do nothing to avoid it.
My major criticism of the Bill is that the existence of the scheme begs several questions that have not yet been answered by Ministers. The first question, which was asked by several hon. Members including the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), and for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), was whether the Government intended the quota system to protect the small producer and to keep him in operation. If that is the case, it is strange that the scheme is available only to small producers. A Victorian ballad says,
It's the poor what helps the poor",
but this scheme takes that saying to absurd lengths. The Minister will say, "We have gone from 200,000 to 325,000 litres." He tried to make a virtue of desperation, because farmers are not fulfilling their quotas and are not getting the firm assurances that they wanted. I should have thought that the scheme would be open to larger farmers to facilitate either a whole or—here I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—a partial surrender of quota. That would be helpful to the small producer, who could continue with part of his quota as a contribution to a mixed farm, and it would also increase the volume of milk surrendered by some bigger farmers into the pool, which will help the allocation of quotas and avoid some of the hardship that would otherwise be caused to small farmers who specialise in dairy herds.
Secondly, is the Bill intended to protect communities? It is not generally appreciated that the farming industry's most significant role is as the base of rural life. Not only will small farmers face hardship, but, as the hon. and disappearing Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) said, many others who depend upon agriculture directly or indirectly will be affected. Gradually, the entire life of a region will be affected if we change agriculture in ways that have not been fully thought out. I appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), who is from the east of the country, and I agree that in this case there is no north-south divide, but an east-west divide. There is likely to be a split between east and west, with the dairy industry in the west being disadvantaged, unless the Government are more clear about the communities that they hope to see at the end of the reshaping of the dairy industry upon which they have embarked.
The third and most important question that the Government have not answered is what they envisage as the future for the outgoers from the dairy industry. Do they want them to quit agriculture completely? If so, what will those outgoers do? What other occupations could they have? What other forms of agriculture would the Government advise outgoers to take up, if they wish them to change to another product rather than quit agriculture altogether? If the Government wish outgoers to quit altogether, they should consider the environmental effect of the abandonment of large numbers of smallholdings, many of them in very inaccessible places. If a tenant quits with the landowner's blessing, the landowner can put the land to another use, but if a somewhat inaccessible holding is quit by the small owner-occupier, the land will be sterilised for any useful occupation in the future. The Government must decide whether they want outgoers to quit the industry completely or to produce something else. They must take that decision before we can decide whether


they should accede to the pleas for the extension of the outgoers scheme that have been made by almost every Back Bencher who has spoken today.
It may be the Government's intention to encourage some different form of agriculture. However, under the present terms and conditions of the scheme, the outgoer will not have much chance of changing the way in which he gets his livelihood. It seems that the average compensation is likely to be about £32,000. Such a sum will not buy many sophisticated machines designed to facilitate other types of farming. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian has said, much of the money may already be owed to the bank.
I hope that the Minister of State will answer those points. With a scheme that did not achieve any of the desired objectives—a scheme that simply did not work—we would be in the worst of all possible worlds. In his opening speech, the Minister told us that less than half the number needed have firmly declared their wish to take advantage of the outgoers scheme. He said that he was confident that the required number would apply. However, any restructuring of the industry must be carried out in the most sensible way possible. Is the Minister confident that a restructuring based on the present outgoers scheme will help to create the sensible new industry that would provide the best base for the future?
A number of hon. Members referred to tenant farmers. The right hon. Gentleman said that 45 per cent. of those who have a firm intention to stop milk production are tenants. However, do we know how many landlords, in giving their consent, are asking for extra rental or doing any of the other things described recently in Farmers Weekly? How many tenants are suffering changes in conditions because they are taking advantage of the scheme?
In the representations that I have had from farmers, the matter most often mentioned has been the transferability of the quota. The Ministry needs to study more carefully the question of leasing and sale. However, I hope that the simple ability to buy the quota will not be the criterion in consideration of the type of protection to be given. I hope that those who have made a great deal of money out of other forms of agriculture will not be allowed to filch quota away from other parts of the country where it underpins the economy. I think that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has called for some safeguard in that area, as well as for flexibility. The Government must consider the matter urgently.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and other hon. Members have referred to the Government's obligation to those who took up development schemes because of the enthusiastic encouragement of the Government. In so doing, a number of people became unwisely over-committed to the banks, and poverty is now staring them in the face. The Government have a responsibility to those whom they encouraged to expand their herds. I hope that they will consider the possibility of allocating extra quota to such people.
I also hope that the Minister of State will clarify the figures. I admit that I cannot understand the simplest figures. However, first of all, we were told that where the tribunal had assessed the need for extra quota, about 35 per cent. less than the sum needed was being allowed because

of the insufficient supply of extra quota. Then the Minister said that 11 per cent. would be added in future years. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify the relationship between the two figures.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) both asked about direct sellers. Direct sellers were certainly not given clear information when the scheme was set up and many of them — through an inadvertence that they share with many hon. Members as well as people outside—now find that they have exceeded their quota or that their quota is in the wrong form. Unless direct sellers are treated sympathetically, they will suffer considerable hardship.
The situation is volatile. In principle, the Bill deserves the support of the House. The fact that it does not include everyone does not mean that it will not help those with whom it deals. However, I hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider questions such as the extension of the scheme, and will not hold too firmly to the statement in the Minister's opening speech.
As has been pointed out, even under the Labour Government of 1966–70 one had to wait until Cabinet Ministers were Out of office before their memoirs—such as the Crossman memoirs — appeared. However, now we do not have to wait for publication or for the fall of the Government. With a bland disregard for collective responsibility, the Minister of Agriculture tells us what terrible fights he has with the Treasury over sums that are pitifully small in terms of total Government spending or in terms of the Minister's own contingency fund allocation.
Everyone has asked for an extension of the scheme to make it more flexible and to alleviate the hardship that will undoubtedly affect many groups of people in the industry. I hope that the Minister will not regard the sacrosanctity of public expenditure targets as more important than the well being of those who have served the community for a long time. We are discussing comparatively small amounts of money. If the Minister and territorial Secretaries of State cannot form a powerful and noisy wedge in the Cabinet to press the Treasury for extra provision to extend and make the scheme more flexible, I do not believe that he will have discharged the duty to the outgoers that we all recognise.
The Bill should be given a Second Reading. It should be improved vastly in Committee, but the most important thing which should come out of today's debate is not the improvement of the Bill but the improvement of the scheme. It is on the scheme that justice for the dairy industry depends.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked an enormous number of questions during this comparatively short debate. I shall endeavour to answer as many as I can without going on interminably.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has until 10 o'clock.

Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that the House would think it unwise of me to go on for two and a half hours in response to a debate which was not much longer than that. If I do not deal with all of the issues that have been raised, they can be considered in Committee. Indeed, some of them could equally well have been raised in Committee.
In the opening comments of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) we had yet again an example of the Opposition speaking with two voices. Indeed, the Opposition have almost literally spoken with two voices as only two Opposition Members have spoken. Only two Opposition Members have been present for most of the debate.

Mr. Home Robertson: There have been three.

Mr. MacGregor: Very well. However, I meant two voices in the more usual sense.
The predecessor of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) as Opposition spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), constantly said that agricultural subsidies were too high. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Pontypridd dissents from that view, but having, as usual, criticised the high level of agricultural subsidies, the Opposition take the easy way out on specific issues and call for even more public expenditure and subsidy. Such was the case today when they urged more subsidy for outgoers; yet they criticise the Government for spending too much on agriculture.
The hon. Member for East Lothian showed schizophrenia in his speech. He lamented the fact that the outgoers scheme would result in people leaving the land, thus having a serious effect on rural areas, and almost in the same breath called for even more expenditure to get even more people off the land. He should consider the implications of some of his arguments. He called the payments to producers under the outgoers scheme inadequate. That can hardly be the case as, unlike other member states, the amount that we are asking for will be taken up in full.
I should like to consider the sole policy point that the hon. Member for East Lothian raised and then deal with the many questions that he asked. He said that the Opposition expect us to ask in the price review, for the United Kingdom only, that the transitional arrangement of an extra 1 per cent. in quota for 1984–85 should be continued next year. In other words, our policy should be to ensure that there is not the expected reduction of 1 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that was a transitional arrangement, that we still have a substantial surplus of dairy products throughout the Community, and that we have to pay for that transitional arrangement through an extra 1 per cent. on the co-responsibility levy. If they knew that there would have to be an extra 1 per cent. in co-responsibility levy, most farmers would have preferred not to have the transitional arrangement. The hon. Gentleman must face up to what he would do about that extra 1 per cent. If he argues that it should be removed, he should consider where the extra money would come from.
The hon. Gentleman asked about progress in cutting production, as a result of the quota system, throughout the Community. One of the problems is that statistics for October and November are only provisional and none exist for December. However, those estimates suggest that from April to November 1984 milk production in the Community was cut by about 4 per cent. compared with the same period in 1983. The important point is that, for the Community as a whole and for individual member states, as the previous agriculture Commissioner made clear at a Council meeting in December, that downward

trend is accelerating. It has taken longer for the downward trend to show through in some member states than it did in the United Kingdom, where the drought and the disciplined response of our producers had an impact.
I must emphasise that the figures are provisional. They are not official statistics and will have to be revised. To give an idea, however, I shall give the statistics for member states from April to November, as previous figures to the end of September suggested that many member states were increasing rather than reducing production. The provisional figures show that production in Belgium is down by 4·6 per cent. compared with the same period in 1983, that in Denmark it is down 6·5 per cent., that in Germany it is down 6 per cent., that in France it is down 1·3 per cent., that in Luxembourg it is down 5·1 per cent. and that in the United Kingdom, as we know it is down 8·9 per cent. Although the figures are provisional, they show that the quota system is beginning to bite in most member states and that production is decreasing towards the targets.
The hon. Member for East Lothian also asked for international comparisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) asked about international comparisons on the outgoers scheme. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said about our outgoers scheme being relatively generous. It is difficult to make precise comparisons, because the schemes have quite different elements. They might range over a longer period or have different purposes or be directed at particular types of producer. For example, the French are concentrating on those they want out of the industry because they want to restructure it. The scheme is concentrated on the over-55s. Comparison is difficult, but there is no doubt that the United Kingdom has a fair and reasonably generous scheme. The German scheme runs for 10 years and the French scheme is less than ours in regard to the amount paid per litre. I do not have time to go into detail but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said, analysis would show the British scheme to be relatively generous.
It is important to remember, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said at Question Time, that there is no sin in not cutting milk production. If member states exceed their quotas, they are penalised through the application of a super-levy. There is no obligation to cut production to quota levels but there is an obligation to collect levy on production which is in excess of quotas. That is why the fair application of the super-levy throughout member states is critical and why we have concentrated so much of our attention on it in recent Council meetings.
The hon. Members for East Lothian and for Pontypridd asked for an assurance that we would not be penalised if we were to fall short of our quota this year. That could well happen because of the impact of the drought. There is no such suggestion in any discussions that I have heard on this matter in the Community, and if it were suggested we should resist it.
Indeed, we would point out, as many other Ministers and the previous Commissioner have said, that one of the reasons why United Kingdom production has come down faster than that of other member states is the drought, which was more marked here. That would obviously be a strong argument we could put if there was any attempt to penalise us for under-production. I can give the assurance asked for by both hon. Gentlemen that we would resist that totally.
In regard to redundancy for farm workers and for other employees in ancillary industries, the hon. Member for East Lothian said that he would be putting forward an amendment that the Bill should provide for redundancy payments for stockmen as well as for outgoers. That is not appropriate for this Bill because it does not deal with redundancy payments. We already have a general statutory redundancy scheme, so redundant stockmen and others would benefit from it. It is not appropriate to compare payments under the outgoers scheme with redundancy payments because the outgoers scheme is not a redundancy scheme. It is important to understand this.
The outgoers scheme is a measure to enable the industry as a whole to adjust to the quota arrangements by making the additional quota available in particular to smaller producers but also to others. It is not a redundancy scheme as such. The number of redundancies among farm workers appears to be limited but, as I have said, it is always open to an employer and an employee to agree more favourable redundancy terms than those available from the protection of the statutory arrangements under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. They can agree more favourable terms than the statutory minimum, and this has been done in some cases. The Milk Marketing Board is doing so for its creameries.
It is not right to draw an analogy with what the Dutch Government are proposing. They are making specific provision for redundancy payments for people in agriculture because the Dutch Government have no statutory redundancy scheme. This is the big difference. We have a statutory redundancy scheme which will make redundancy payments available to those who are made redundant.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend tell us how this applies to the self-employed? This is news to me. Generally farmers are self-employed.

Mr. MacGregor: What I was asked about in the debate was the position of stockmen, employees of farmers and employees in ancillary industries. The self-employed farmer will be able to take advantage of the outgoers scheme which is intended to restructure the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the hon. Member for East Lothian drew attention to the uncertainty for the farmers who do not yet know what their secondary quota is. They, like several other hon. Members, mentioned some of the difficulties that individual farmers have had with the panel and tribunal system. We have always had two objectives. The important point was to try to get the balance between them. On the one hand, there was the determination to get as much fairness and thoroughness in the appeal system as we could; but, on the other hand, there was a need to complete the process as soon as possible to let producers know exactly where they stood. That was the balance we had to try to achieve, and I believe that in general we have achieved it.
In regard to the uncertainty for outgoers, we were asked why we had made firm offers to producers in tranches. There are two answers. First, we could not give an immediate offer to all who had applied because the scheme was heavily over-subscribed and we could have found ourselves making offers to too many people. We always

assumed that some would not wish to take up the offer, but if we had made immediate offers to all and sundry we could have had more commitments than we could meet.
Another important point is that many people in farming were concerned that if all the outgoers went out of production at the same time there would be a severe effect on the market in beef. We have endeavoured to avoid that and I think we have been successful, in view of beef prices. That was another important reason for staging the tranches.
The hon. Member for East Lothian asked me, as did some other hon. Members, why we were insisting that producers should get out in toto if they took up the outgoers scheme and why we could not allow partial surrender of quotas. The straightforward answer is that Community regulations permit us only to make payments to producers who "discontinue milk production definitively". This means that we had to insist that outgoers surrender their entire quota, which can, of course, relate to more than one farm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton asked again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) had asked my right hon. Friend, whether, if there ever were another outgoers scheme, we would ensure that there was an opportunity for the House to comment on draft regulations. I am sure my hon. Friend realises that it is a hypothetical question, because my right hon. Friend has made it clear that we do not intend to introduce another scheme. He drew attention to the fact that if it occurred there was a precedent in what we did with the quota regulations in July where we gave the House an opportunity to comment before we put forward the final regulations. I have noted the feeling in the House on this. I repeat that it will depend on whether there is another outgoers scheme; but whether one should do it in that way will also depend on what that scheme contains.
My hon. Friend asked me to say what formula was used for the additional allocation of quota this year. He will know that the extra allocation went to Eire, Northern Ireland and Luxembourg, which got a small amount. Basically it went to areas where the total economy was more dependent on dairying than other areas in the Community.
There is no link between the production quotas which have been fixed under the quota system and what was agreed in the price review last March on imports of New Zealand butter. That is why I do not think one could argue the case in future negotiations on the super-levy system because the production quotas were based on delivery and sales levels in members states and not on imports of dairy produce or anything like that. Therefore, there was no link between those two.
My hon. Friend drew attention to a problem which has been raised with me as I have moved around the country and by several of my hon. Friends—the possibility that producers have been treated differently by different panels. In a system that has had to be introduced and carried through with the rapidity that we wanted so as to leave producers clear where they stood on quotas, it is not possible to ensure absolute and complete consistency, but we have made every endeavour to do that. The key point is that the setting up of the tribunal system, where it is easier to achieve consistency, gives producers who feel that they have been treated unfairly the opportunity to appeal. The tribunal system gives that safeguard.
My hon. Friend talked about discrimination against the small producer who carried out improvements without the expander scheme or a loan from the bank. There is no discrimination in the regulations on that point. In general we do not believe that local panels or tribunals are making such discrimination, but producers must be able to demonstrate that they have carried out or committed themselves to investment which is leading to the increase in output that they are claiming. In some cases producers have not been able to satisfy panels that the work they have done will produce the expansion in production which they are claiming.
In regard to my hon. Friend's question about statutory provision for tax treatment, as I think he will know, the non-statutory scheme which will be in existence until the Bill is passed gives producers the choice of two types of payment and gives favourable tax treatment for payments under the outgoers scheme. The tax treatment given to these two types of payment results from the provisions of general taxation legislation and the way in which the outgoers scheme was conceived. The same will apply to any future statutory scheme. Therefore, it is not necessary to provide for the tax treatment in a Bill of this sort.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and I have debated endlessly why the quota system was introduced and whether it is fair to the United Kingdom. He knows why we felt that in the end it was inevitable. He knows why we dispute entirely his charge that the outcome was unfair to United Kingdom producers. In fact, we got a very good deal.
I shall not go into that, but I wish to comment in particular on three of the points which the hon. Gentleman made. He argued that the outgoers scheme did not acknowledge the plight of small producers and did not do enough for the rural areas. He asked for the precise figures on the outgoers scheme in Wales as distinct from the 1,186 which my right hon. Friend quoted for England and Wales. So far, 213 Welsh producers have firmly responded to the firm offer of the outgoers scheme, but the objective of the scheme is to give that extra allocation to small producers who wish to stay in business and to bring them back to their 1983 levels. That is particularly effective in the rural areas such as Wales.
So far, there has been a considerable redistributative effect to small producers in Wales as a result of the outgoers scheme. It looks as though it will operate to the advantage of Welsh small producers, because while Wales accounts for only 15 per cent. of the outgoers so far signed up, about 25 per cent. of the reallocated quota will go to small producers in Wales. That is a clear indication of how the scheme has been directed to help small producers and rural areas in Wales.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to clarify the position in order to avoid a slanging match. I respect the hon. Gentleman in many ways, and he has been very fair in many of our debates. Out of the 200 small farmers in Wales who have accepted the outgoers scheme, how many have herds of fewer than 40 cows?

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a specific question on that. I suspect that the vast majority have fewer than 40 cows, because in the early stages the scheme has concentrated on small producers.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that part quotas should be introduced into the outgoers scheme. As I have already said, we are bound by the Community regulations.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that a producer who had to sell his herd would face a considerable tax payment, thereby reducing the amount available either to start another business or to reduce his overdraft. He knows that, in addition to the favourable treatment in the outgoers scheme, we have through the herd basis on taxation given favourable treatment to the producer who wants to get out and who gets rid of 20 per cent. or more of his total herd. Under the herd basis, the proceeds of selling the herd will be totally tax free. In addition, we made a change in the Finance Act 1984 to enable much greater flexibility this year and last so that the producer could elect for the herd basis and take advantage of it. That is an important point in relation to tax treatment and the proceeds available to continue a business in another direction.

Mr. Geraint Howells: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: In view of the time, I shall not give way. I am fairly certain that the hon. Gentleman and I will have an opportunity to debate this further in Committee.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) for his opening remarks. He said that the system was beginning to settle down. We have tried to operate the scheme as helpfully and flexibly as we possibly could within the rules ever since it was introduced.
My hon. Friend urged that there should be greater interchange between wholesale and direct sale quotas, particularly for mixed businesses. We entirely agree, and for many months in Council meetings we have endeavoured to get a change. We have put forward a proposal to the Commission and the Council which will achieve that without undermining the super-levy system. The previous agriculture Commissioner said that he would consider this, but the previous Commission was clearly reluctant to make any changes in its latter months. My right hon. Friend and I will again raise this point with the new Commissioner Mr. Andriessen, when we meet him tomorrow. We have it very much in mind.
Within the existing rules we have the opportunity, through the MMB, to undertake a swap shop. As my hon. Friend may know, we have now reached agreement on how that will operate, and the information has now gone out to producers from the MMB. That will present a limited possibility at least of getting greater flexibility and interchange between wholesale and direct sale quotas.
My hon. Friend also raised the much wider issue of transferability of quota generally. It was also referred to by the hon. Member for East Lothian, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, who called for leasing of quotas, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd. We would like to see much greater flexibility in the quota system and more transferability of quota. The first aim was to get the outgoers scheme operating; that was what we concentrated on. We are now moving to ideas on the transferability of quota, and I understand why so many hon. Members have raised this issue. I agree that it is desirable to try to achieve something.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd suggested that there was almost unanimous agreement about what should be done. It is not as simple as that, because there are many difficult problems. However, this is an appropriate


opportunity to tell the House that in the last few days we have issued a consultative document entitled "Mobility of Quota". I have it with me. It goes into all the issues and difficulties raised by hon. Members who have asked for greater transferability of quota, and is a genuine consultation document. There are many issues to be decided and we are also going out to the industry for consultation. I urge my hon. Friends to obtain a copy of this document. It is in the Library. Alternatively, I shall happily provide them with a copy so that we can obtain their views.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: How do we obtain copies of the consultative document?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that hon. Members would wish to have copies of their own, and if they contact my office I shall ensure that they get them immediately.
Whatever we finally decide should be obtained for the United Kingdom, it must be agreed by the Commission and in the Council. One way or another we must ensure that it is put on the negotiating table. That will not be easy. But the consultation document outlines the direction in which we should like to go and shows that this is the next stage on which we would like to see action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes also spoke of the delay in informing people of their quota, particularly their secondary quota. I have partly dealt with that, but another important point is that up to September no super levy in England and Wales will be paid this year for producers who overproduced. That may well be the position at the end of the year. For the year as a whole, in England and Wales there is room for some recovery of production. So long as production in the three months from January to March 1985 is not more than about 2 per cent. above production in the same period last year, no levy will be payable by wholesale producers selling to the MMB at the end of the marketing year. That is important for those who still do not know what their secondary quotas are.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) specifically asked about our proposals for the outgoers scheme in Northern Ireland. We are still assessing the results of the scheme throughout the United Kingdom. We do not yet know the outcome, but we are aware that a shortfall will occur in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, we and our colleagues concerned with agriculture, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, are looking at whether there are ways of dealing with difficulties which arise from this disappointing response.
The amount of payment of levy due from Northern Ireland will be a good deal less than the £5 million at the end of September which the hon. Gentleman suggested. We have made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the supplementary levy arrangements must be applied properly by all member states. We are not prepared to see our producers disadvantaged compared with others. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that at the end of the day, depending on the outcome of discussions in the new Council and with the new Commission, we still have a liability to a payment in Northern Ireland up to the end of September.
But we are keeping the situation under review. We have to be ready to collect and pay over any levies which may be due to us once the legal position becomes clearer and

we are satisfied that other member states are conforming to the requirements, always depending upon the outcome of further discussions which are taking place currently in the Council.

Mr. James Nicholson: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that at the end of the day the money is still there and that the Bill is still against the farmers in Northern Ireland. However, will he deal with the point I made regarding the quality of the relationship between farmers in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, especially the small farmers and bringing up to 1983 levels those producers with fewer than 200,000 litres?

Mr. MacGregor: That is very much tied up with the outcome of the discussions which we are having on the outgoers scheme and the disappointing response in Northern Ireland. I can go no further this evening than to say to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that we are aware of the problem and that we are discussing it.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) raised a point about direct sellers and asked for clear guidance on the position of direct sellers if they have overproduced by the end of the year. The hon. Member is quite right. Direct sellers are not under the same formula B as the wholesale producers in England and Wales. Therefore, individual sellers who were over their quota at the end of the year would be liable to the super levy. I am very much aware of some of the points which the hon. Member for Truro and other hon. Members have made about the position of direct sellers. We are anxious to obtain greater flexibility for them. I take the point that they are producing for a market. They are not producing for intervention. This is a very important aspect.
The hon. Member also asked about the co-responsibility levy, as did my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). We have to take into account the fact that the co-responsibility levy raises a considerable sum of money which goes into the dairy products pot in the Community. It was estimated to be £412 million in 1984 for the Community as a whole. It is put to certain uses, such as promotional campaigns, the school milk programme, the normal disposal measures relating to butter, and so on. If the co-responsibility levy disappeared, either we should be back to the budgetary problem or we should have to drop some of those schemes.
There is, therefore, still a problem. We share the hon. Member's view about the co-responsibility levy. We are anxious that its impact should be reduced. Provided that everything else could be sorted out, we should welcome a proposal to abolish it, but it would have to be looked at in the context of the other measures to continue restraint in the milk sector.

Mr. Penhaligon: On the co-responsibility levy, the point which the Minister makes regarding the use to which the money is put to get rid of the surplus—the schools programme and so on—is logical, but what part of the £400 million that is raised would be used?

Mr. MacGregor: All of it would go into those sorts of schemes. A few days ago I saw a precise breakdown of where it has gone in the last year, but I was unable to get hold of it for this debate. If, therefore, the hon. Member will table a question I shall make sure that he receives an answer almost immediately. My hon. Friend the Member


for St. Ives asked for more flexibility and said that the quotas should not necessarily be linked to the land. One of the main points of the mobility of quota paper is precisely that. I am sure that he will wish to study the paper and let us have his comments.
My hon. Friend also asked when, under the outgoers scheme, the allocation of quota to bring small producers up to the 1983 level would occur. My right hon. Friend dealt with this point. Briefly, my right hon. Friend said that this year, because most of the producers coming out of the outgoers scheme have already used up a great deal of their quota for this year, there is not a great deal left and that we shall be concentrating on hardship cases. But the small producers may find that there is no levy to be paid at the end of this year and that we have every intention of making sure that the small producers of fewer than 200,000 litres are in 1985–86 brought up in full to the 1983 production levels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) attacked the quota system as a whole. I dislike the controls and the bureaucracy that quotas entail, bat I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that there is a limit to the financial support that we can give for producing surpluses that cannot be sold on the market and that go into intervention stores. The amount of support for the dairy industry last year—my hon. Friend gave the impression that there was none—was colossal. In 1984 it amounted to £3,400 million across the Community as a whole and to several hundred million pounds in this country. One could do without the bureaucracy of schemes of this sort if we dispensed with financial support of that kind, but I suspect that my hon. Friend's constituents would not appreciate it. Since we could not obtain a solution based upon a reduction in price, which itself would not have been heinous, we had to accept the quota system.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) asked a question during my right hon. Friend's speech. I can confirm to the right hon. Member, as my right hon. Friend said, that there is no restriction in the Community legislation upon the reallocation of the outgoers quota across regional boundaries. However, we would need to look again at the detailed provisions of our own dairy produce quotas regulations if we wished to do this. We should need to specify precisely how the transfer was to be carried out. However, there is no bar upon it under the Community regulations.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Did I understand the Minister earlier in his speech to say that in order to make such transfers we should have to go to the Community for its agreement? Perhaps that was said in a different context.

Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not think that is what my right hon. Friend said. That is not the case. It is possible within the Community regulations.
I come finally to the points made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd. I hope that he will forgive me, in view of the fact that I have been speaking for a long time, if I do not go into some of the wider issues which he raised. They were interesting issues which we shall have to debate later about the impact on rural areas, but on this Bill it would not be appropriate for me to take up the time of the House upon them. However, I should like to deal with one or two of the hon. Member's specific points.
The hon. Member asked whether it is the Government's intention, through the outgoers scheme, to keep the small

producer in operation. The answer absolutely is yes. The primary objective of the outgoers scheme is to reallocate quotas to the small producer who is staying in milk production. The hon. Member hinted that because we started by making firm offers to those small producers who want to come out we were, in a sense, letting the small producer help the small producer, but I repeat that the primary objective is to reallocate the quota. Since there was over-subscription of the outgoers scheme, we took the view that it was sensible to allow those small producers who wished voluntarily to come out of milk production to have the first option to do so, but it was in no sense an attempt to say that small producers are helping small producers. If no small producers had taken up the firm offer of the outgoers scheme, we should then have gone on to the next stage—the producers. However, I repeat that the primary objective is to give the small producer who wishes to stay in an opportunity to stay in at his 1983 production levels.
Finally, the hon. Member asked me to clarify the position on two of the figures to which my right hon. Friend referred in his opening speech—the 35 per cent. and the 11 per cent. I well understand the difficulty which the hon. Member has with some of the figures, but there is no real connection between the two. The 35 per cent. is an indication— it can be no more than that at the moment—of the amount of scaling down which may have to happen to the special cases—expanders—when we see finally what the tribunals have awarded and what the panels which have not gone to the tribunal have awarded.
We made it clear from the outset that we should allow a certain proportion to be deducted from the primary quota in order to provide for those special cases but that it was very probable that it would not be sufficient and that therefore there would have to be a scaling down. We made it clear throughout that there may have to be quite substantial scaling down. My right hon. Friend said today that at this stage it could be up to 35 per cent., but we have to be very clear that it is still a tentative figure because there is still a great deal of work to be done as the tribunal figures come through.
The 11 per cent. related to the reallocation of quota to small producers next year. The 11 per cent. figure will enable small producers to return to the 1983 production levels next year. That may sound a little odd since the reduction for 1983 was 9 per cent., so let me explain briefly.
If the original primary allocation of primary quota to the small producer was 9 per cent. below its 1983 level, it has to be rather over 9 per cent. above the 1984–85 level to take him back to his 1983 level. But there is the further point that the additional 1 per cent. that will have to be reduced next year because the transitional period runs out will not apply to that small producer. Therefore, we have said that it will be 11 per cent. to enable a small producer to return to his 1983 production level without any penalty on the loss of the transitional period. I hope that that explains briefly a rather complicated matter.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the issues that have been raised in the debate. It has come through clearly from the debate that there is broad support for the Bill. Some, inevitably, would wish it to go further, but it has broad support. We are anxious to get it on the statute book for the cause of the small producers. Therefore, I hope that it will have a fair and quick wind in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

MILK (CESSATION OF PRODUCTION) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Milk (Cessation of Production) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any payments made under the Act by a Minister of the Crown for the purpose of compensating persons, who are or have been registered in the direct sales register or a wholesale register maintained under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984, for discontinuing milk production; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums repaid to a Minister of the Crown under the Act.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

European Community (Fisheries Arrangements)

8 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10171/84 and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum on 1985 total allowable catches and quotas; of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum on 1985 catch quotas in Greenland waters, and of the unnumbered explanatory memoranda on the fisheries agreements for 1985 between the European Community and Norway, the European Community and the Faroe Islands and the European Community and Spain; of European Community Documents Nos. 10697/84 on technical conservation measures and 10264/84 on 1985 fish guide prices; and welcomes and approves the provisional agreement reached on these arrangements for 1985 with the improvements obtained for the United Kingdom fishing industry.
The motion before the House makes it clear that tonight's debate covers a number of documents on EC fisheries legislation, most of which are concerned with the fishing arrangements for 1985 under the common fisheries policy.
Those documents have been recommended for the further consideration of the House by the Select Committee on European Legislation. We are, as always, grateful to the Committee for its careful scrutiny of these matters, particularly on this occasion when, I understand, it held a meeting yesterday in addition to its planned programme in order to deal with some of the later documents which have come before us.
Before going into detail on the various documents, I should first explain that the complete proposals on total allowable catches and quotas and on the third country agreements were presented on 18 December for discussion at the Fisheries Council the very next day, and that, after lengthy negotiations, a compromise package emerged to which all the other member states were able to give their agreement.
I considered that that package was satisfactory for the United Kingdom, too, but, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee, I entered a formal reservation on the adoption of the regulations for 1985, pending a debate in the House.
However, in order that fishing should not be interrupted, I agreed that the regulations should be adopted on an interim basis to 20 January only, pending clarification of the United Kingdom position following completion of the Parliamentary scrutiny procedures. Therefore, the position of the House is fully reserved.
I should also mention that the proposals on guide prices for 1985, which were considered by the Select Committee on 14 November, came before the Council for urgent adoption in a revised form on 4 December. Given the nature of the proposals, and the need for a number of detailed implementing measures to be taken before the new prices could take effect on 1 January, I judged that it would not be in our interest to hold up adoption.
Therefore, I subsequently wrote explaining this decision to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who is so assiduous about such matters, and I am glad to say that with his customary understanding he was able fully to accept my explanation.
Having dealt with these procedural questions, let me now deal with the substance of the measures involved. I shall deal first with the TACs and quotas for 1985 covered by document 10171/84 and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 4 January.
The annual fixing of TACs and quotas is of course one of the principal cornerstones of the common fisheries policy, determining as it does the opportunities for fishermen, and it is of particular concern to the United Kingdom given our major interest in most of the stocks concerned.
In 1984, agreement was reached on the TACs and quotas for the year at the end of January, but we and the other member states were determined this time to make every effort to settle TACs and quotas for 1985 before the beginning of the year, so as to give the industry a clear basis on which to plan. That we have now achieved, subject only to my own parliamentary reservation, and I see that as an important step forward in the development of the common fisheries policy as an effective instrument of fisheries regulation and management. I should also add that that was no easy achievement, given in particular the need for prior negotiations with a number of third countries, notably Norway.
Therefore, I think it right to pay tribute both to the Commission and to the Irish President of the council, that an acceptable compromise package was reached in the course of a single day's negotiations, particularly as a full set of proposals was not available until the day before the Council meeting.
I shall now outline the main elements of interest to the United Kingdom, starting with the North sea joint stocks. Here, there are increases in the availability of all white fish stocks, as agreed with Norway in the light of the latest scientific advice.
The higher United Kingdom quotas for cod, haddock and saithe in particular, representing increases of 15 per cent., 19·8 per cent. and 11·1 per cent. respectively, will be most welcome to our fishermen both north and south of the border.
In particular, it is gratifying that North sea cod, about which concern has been expressed in the House on a number of occasions, has shown enough signs of recovery to enable the TAC to be increased significantly for 1985.
It has not yet proved possible to reach agreement with Norway on the problem of the allocation of the North sea herring stock. But, without sacrificing our existing firm position on that issue, it has been agreed that negotiations will continue in the course of 1985.
In the meantime, both parties will regulate their herring fisheries independently on an interim basis in the light of the scientific advice. That involves a provisional TAC for the Community sector of 320,000 tonnes.
The United Kingdom quota in the northern and central zones—IV A and B—which is more important for us than the southern zone, IV C, is to be 58,490 tonnes, more than double our figures for 1984. For the southern zone, IV C, our quota has also increased to 9,700 tonnes, and the provision allowing the transfer of a part of this quantity in IV C to the central North sea, IV B has been increased from 20 to 25 per cent. So we could using that transfer mechanism, fish 60,915 tonnes in IV A and B and 7,275 in IV C.
That allocation between the three North sea areas therefore constitutes for the United Kingdom a considerable improvement over the Commission's original

proposal and I know that the fishing industry attaches great importance to the changes which were achieved in the negotiation.
The quantities of North sea mackerel available to the Community under the agreement with Norway have also been also increased. In previous years, the United Kingdom had not been awarded a quota for this stock, but in this year's package several member states, including the United Kingdom have been allocated a small quantity, of 330 tonnes, mainly intended to cover unavoidable by-catches of mackerel in the North sea herring fisheries.
I come to stocks which lie outside the North sea. The TACs for west of Scotland haddock and herring will be lower than in 1984 in the light of clear scientific advice on the state of these stocks. I was, however, able to ensure that the figures in the final package were significantly higher than those originally proposed by the Commission. This is particularly important for the west coast herring fishery.
The so-called Manx herring TAC is further increased for 1985 to 4,400 tonnes, which will be particularly welcome to the Northern Irish boats which mainly prosecute this fishery.
The TAC for western mackerel, a stock of great importance to the United Kingdom fishing industry, is to be reduced following firm scientific advice. However, as I believe our industry recognises, this reduction is clearly in the best interest of the long-term conservation of the stock, and it should not in practice restrict the activities of our fishermen, as the reduced United Kingdom quota for 1985, of 220,000 tonnes, is still higher than our expected catch, which was about 185,000 tonnes in 1984.
Before leaving the question of TACs, I should mention a group of small but locally important white fish stocks in area VII; that is, the Irish sea, Bristol channel, Western approaches and English channel. During 1984, the TACs for this group of stocks and the management of the United Kingdom quotas attracted a great deal of attention, and although we were able to get a number of the TACs increased and arrange quota swaps with other member states, it was unfortunately necessary to close certain of the sole and plaice fisheries at various stages in the year.
Despite this, the Commission's original proposals for 1985 would have meant reductions in the United Kingdom quota for some of these stocks, and I thus pressed strongly for these proposals to be reconsidered.
I am glad to report that the compromise package retains the quotas for all the area VII white fish stocks at least the 1984 level, while in the case of certain stocks of particular interest to our fishermen—notably, sole in both sections of the English channel and plaice both in the Irish sea and in the English channel — we have secured modest increases.
We shall of course continue to have to manage these, and, indeed, many of the other, quotas carefully, since the fishing opportunities they provide are by no means unlimited. Nevertheless, I can confidently state that the outcome of the Council's deliberations on the quotas for 1985 represents an exceedingly good package for the United Kingdom fishing industry, and it has been warmly welcomed by the fishermen's representatives, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Do not the improvements in TACs and United Kingdom quotas place an additional responsibility on the


Sea Fish Industry Authority more effectively to promote the sale of fish throughout the United Kingdom? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the performance of that authority?

Mr. Jopling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that important point. I am sure that he is pleased to know that the Community has agreed to a programme which facilitates this important work and I am sure that the House is grateful to him for drawing its attention to that point.

Mr. James Wallace: We are glad that the TACs are in place for 1985 at such an early stage. Causing the industry some concern in the latter part of 1984 was the fact that for saithe in the North sea the Commission had a stoppage of fishing before France and Belgium had fully fished their quotas. Concern was expressed that at a future time there might be a premature stoppage of fishing of a particular species perhaps before we had fished our quota. Has that been discussed by the Council of Ministers, and may we have an assurance that there will not be such a premature stoppage at a future date?

Mr. Jopling: I cannot give an assurance that there will not be a stoppage of that sort. We have discussed this matter in the Council. The Community must look at the total amount of fish caught. It is possible that a situation could arise — the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to such a situation — when, because of over-fishing by one nation, the fishery must be closed before all the other countries with a quota in the area have fished their quotas. This is an unsatisfactory matter. I will now deal with the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. We have consistently stressed to the European Commission the need to ensure that the rules of the common fisheries policy are properly enforced by all member states.
It was largely as a result of our efforts that the Commission set up its own fisheries inspectorate to investigate the way in which the common fisheries policy rules are enforced by the Administrations of member states, and I am pleased to say that we saw a good deal of progress in 1984. I appreciate that, rightly, the House has been keenly interested in this issue during the last year.
The inspectorate carried out a programme of over 50 visits to member states in 1984, as a result of which a number of irregularities were uncovered. We have asked the Commission to produce a report on the first year's operation of the inspectorate and have made it clear that we shall be looking to the Commission to propose suitable penalties for any systematic overfishing of quotas which can be proven.
This relates to the intervention of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) because the key point is to spot at an early stage the moment when a nation has over-fished its quota, so that when the fishery is closed, other people do not have to suffer. We are alert to this difficult problem and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to work on the matter.
In 1985, further improvements in quota observance should result from the introduction of standard log books and landings returns, which are now expected to be

enforced throughout the Community by 1 April. This is welcome progress and it is a date which we extracted from the commissioner as a result of our own initiative.
I come to the various arrangements for fishing in third country waters and at Greenland, as well as the reciprocal arrangements for third country fishermen in member states' waters. In view of the potential interest of the House in these matters, I made my agreement to these proposals also subject to the parliamentary reservation which I have explained.
I start with Greenland. Because the treaty covering Greenland's withdrawal from the Community had not been ratified by all member states within the agreed timetable. Greenland now remains, legally speaking, a part of the Community, although the withdrawal treaty is expected to come into full force later this month.
The Council accordingly agreed, subject to my reservation, interim arrangements pending the entry into force of the withdrawal treaty and the associated fisheries agreement. These arrangements are described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 3 January.
The quotas are, with one exception, at the level provided for in the protocol to the long-term fisheries agreement. The exception is for cod at west Greenland, where scientific advice has indicated that the stock is in a serious condition. In order to allow fishing to continue without prejudicing the decision which it will be for the Greenland authorities to take after withdrawal, German and United Kingdom vessels will be able to fish until 31 January against the balance of their quotas remaining uncaught from 1984—although I must make it clear that United Kingdom catches in Greenland waters in 1984 were in fact very low.
To move from Greenland's icy waters to those of Norway, I have already explained that agreement was eventually reached in mid-December with Norway on a reciprocal fisheries arrangement for 1985 on a basis that is very satisfactory for the United Kingdom. Apart from the increases already mentioned in the availabilities of the joint stocks, the agreement—which is described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 21 December— maintains our white fish quotas at Norway, which constitute the major remaining fisheries of interest to our distant-water fleet, and reductions were secured—at our request in these negotiations — in the allocation to Norway of western mackerel and west of Scotland herring.
On North sea herring, there will be no Norwegian access to the Community zone, pending the conclusion of further negotiations on the allocation of the stock. I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on this in the course of 1985, as there are clear dangers to the long-term conservation of the stock if joint management arrangements cannot be restored. However, it must be said that the two sides are still far apart, and agreement will be very difficult to achieve, even on an ad hoc basis for 1985, let alone on the zonal attachment which both sides agree in principle should form the basis of lasting arrangements, as is the case with the other main joint stocks in the North sea.
The agreement with the Faroe Islands, as described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 21 December, is of little interest to the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it contains certain improvements from our point of view, notably reductions in the allocation to the Faroes of western mackerel and west of Scotland herring, and an exchange of letters committing the Faroes to


negotiate constructively in the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation in June on the level of its intercepting salmon fisheries.
The final third country agreement mentioned in the motion is that with Spain. Given Spain's impending accession to the Community, which is a matter somewhat beyond the scope of tonight's debate, it has been agreed that Spain should in principle retain the same fishing opportunities in Community waters in 1985 as she obtained in 1984, and I think that this is only right. The arrangements are described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 21 December, and the only change over last year is that the number of licences for the Spanish hake fishery will be reduced from 118 to 106.
That concludes my review of the TACs and third country agreements for 1985, but I think that the House would expect me to say a brief word about two other items that are covered by tonight's motion.
First, there is document 10697/84, which contains two proposals to amend the technical conservation regulation. One is simply that a decision on an increase in the mesh size for nets used in the English channel, which was due to be taken by 31 December 1984, should be deferred until 1 July 1987. This follows the most recent scientific advice that it has not been possible to make reliable assessments of the effects of mesh size changes in the channel because of the lack of appropriate data. I regret that this is so, but the Commission is now fully aware of the need to ensure that appropriate data are gathered, and I am hopeful that a proper assessment will be possible before the new deadline in 1987.
The same document also contains proposals to amend rules which apply to vessels fishing with beam trawls within 12 miles of our coasts. The present rules, which exclude from the 12-mile belt beam trawlers over 70 gross registered tonnes or 300 brake horsepower, have, as many hon. Members will be aware, proved extremely difficult to enforce. These new proposals are a development of proposals put forward earlier last year and debated in this House on 3 July. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained then, further consideration was to be given to other criteria for identifying a vessel's size.
As a result, the Commission's latest proposals include a formula for defining size by the product of the beam of a vessel and its overall length. All vessels which on that basis exceeded 120 sq m would then be prohibited from fishing within 12 miles of coasts with beam trawls. The proposal also includes an attempt to define engine power more precisely and to overcome problems associated with the derating of engines.
We are concerned to improve the enforceability of the rules governing beam trawling, but we are not convinced that these proposals will achieve this, not least because they are too complicated and likely to be too restrictive. We are not, however, alone in having reservations about this matter, and before the meeting of the Council on 4 December, it was agreed that this matter needed further study in a working group. The United Kingdom will of course be participating in that group, and we shall be taking fully into account the views and interests of the industry.

Mr. Barry Henderson: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that there are those among us who think, for good fishery conservation reasons, that it would have been better if there had been no trawlers at all.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, particularly in that part of the North sea, the problems of British Telecom, as the beam trawlers fish up the telephone lines between here and Europe?

Mr. Jopling: I am glad to say that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rather than me, although I am concerned to hear about it. Beam trawling is probably one of the most controversial matters in fishing, as my hon. Friend probably knows as well as I do. If he wishes to make speeches advocating that beam trawling should be banned altogether, I recommend him to go and to try his luck in Brixham, and see how that goes down.
The final document before the House is 10264/84, which contains the Commission's proposals for guide prices in 1985. The importance of these prices lies in the fact that they are used to calculate the withdrawal prices that members of the fish producers' organisations must observe if they are to receive compensation from FEOGA for fish which has to be withdrawn from the human consumption market, and the Commission's proposals are in three parts.
The first of these is of greatest importance because it covers the main species of commercial value to United Kingdom fishmen. These are cod, plaice, herring and mackerel, and in this part of the Commission's proposal there is provision for increases ranging from nil to 6 per cent. Taken as a whole, the proposal seemed to us to have been drawn up on a sensible basis.
Nevertheless, we managed in subsequent discussion to secure agreement that the guide prices for plaice should be increased by three percentage points for the first four months of the year and by two further percentage points for the rest of the year, and that the guide price for cod should be increased by 6 per cent. instead of the 5 per cent. proposed by the Commission. Conversely, and as a consequence of adjustments made to reflect the concerns of other member states, the proposed increase for haddock was reduced by one percentage point to 5 per cent.
Overall, however, the changes made to the Commission's proposals represented on balance an improvement which should be welcome to United Kingdom fishermen. As I explained earlier, it was important to reach agreement sufficiently early in December to allow all the other prices derived from the guide prices to be applied from the beginning of the new fishing year in January; otherwise fishermen would have lost the benefit of new and higher price levels for the first few weeks of the new year. For that reason, I hope that the House will understand why, at the Fisheries Council on 4 December, I agreed to the modified guide price proposals, which all other member states were also in a position to adopt.
This occasion provides me with the opportunity, however, to commend to the House the revised proposals and all those in the other documents before us tonight covering the many aspects of the common fisheries policy. I hope that what I have said will have been enough to convince the House that the arrangements for 1985 which we have been able to negotiate, including the improvements that we have obtained for the benefit of the United Kingdom fishing industry, are satisfactory. I have no hesitation in asking the House to approve these proposals.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I might be breaking with protocol by starting with a series of thanks. I thank the Minister for arranging this debate, for putting in the reserve the request of the Select Committee on European Legislation and for enabling us, at the earliest opportunity after the recess, to have the debate for which the Opposition pressed. I am grateful to the Minister for his efforts in producing this debate. I pass on the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, who is very grateful and who wishes his thanks for this debate to be relayed.
Somewhat unusually, I thank the Deliverer of the Vote and his staff because a vast stack of documents were becoming available only during the recess. I thank them for making those documents available to me and other hon. Members at the earliest opportunity. I thank them also for all the hard work they have done to ensure that this plethora of material has been made available for tonight's debate.
On behalf of the fishing industry I repeat the thanks that have been expressed to me by Scottish, English and Welsh fishermen that an agreement was reached before 1 January and that we did not have to go through the farce of acting as though 1 January did not exist. I am sure that the whole fishing industry, whatever the detailed arguments it has against little bits, is delighted and thanks the Council of Ministers in general and our Ministers in particular for what has been achieved. It is a marvellous achievement, after the years of uncertainty that have surrounded the fishing industry, to know when the fishing year starts. Regrettably, the fact that fishermen have not known for the past eight years when the year started was a symptom of the disasters they have faced.
I thank the Minister on behalf of the fishing industry for the 16,000 extra tonnes of North sea cod and the 20,000 extra tonnes of North sea haddock quotas. Along with many other hon. Members I have received a briefing note from the Scottish Fishermens Federation which states that North sea cod quotas will increase by approximately 16,000 tonnes. The federation states:
there are also smaller increases in our Quotas of North Sea Whiting, Saithe and Plaice and all in all the outcome should ensure a good year's fishing for the White Fish Sector of the Scottish fleet and at the same time go some considerable way towards meeting the problems encountered by the Processing Side of the Industry in 1984.
I convey to the Government also the thanks of the Scottish fishing industry and the Tyneside and Shields fishing industry for the strong stance the Government are taking in the negotiations with Norway. We are clearly in the lead, and the Government have the support of the east coast herring fishing industry totally and unequivocally. The demands made by the Norwegian Government are extravagant and unacceptable, and this Government will have the total support, and the thanks, of the British fishing industry, especially on the east coast, for their stand in negotiations with the Norwegians over these North sea stocks.
So much for the thanks. I now turn to a number of small questions, some of which were raised by the Minister. Did we fish any cod off the west coast of Greenland during 1984? Is it other than a paper transaction? I suspect that we have not fished that cod, that we have not wished to

fish it or have had the capacity to fish it. Therefore, to include this measure is nonsense and to pretend that it is a significant part of any package helps no one.
The exchange of notes and the letter received from the Chief Minister of the Faroes leads me to suspect that, before too long, there could be a Faroese salmon war unless we are careful. At long last, we may have picked someone of our own size in such matters with whom to have a fight. The relationship between the Faroese assault on north Atlantic salmon fisheries and that by Greenland is like the relationship between a gnat and a vulture. I am afraid that we are straining to reach an agreement on salmon catches with the Faroese while we are permitting catches to be made in Greenland waters with no apparent difficulty.
I should like the Minister to be clear about the relationship between the white fish and pelagic fisheries fished by the Faroese and the discussions occurring within the confines of the north Atlantic salmon fishing arrangements and the reserved position the Faroese Government have taken if those arrangements should fail. We appear to be getting fairly close to going to war with the Faroes over a few salmon while the vast quantity of Greenland salmon are left untouched. That would be unsatisfactory to the Faroese and wholly unsatisfactory to our salmon fisheries.
The Minister mentioned en passant the control of trawling within the 12-mile limit on certain parts of our coast. Having read the documents, I can only agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the present proposals on derating of engines and so forth are so complex as to be unintelligible to anyone other than a marine engineer. Unless one takes account of the hauling capacity of a beam trawler, its catching capacity cannot be measured adequately. What matters is not merely the size of a vessel but how hard it can plough its beam trawl through on its engine power.
I have great sympathy with the view that beam trawling is repugnant and should be banned as soon as possible. I hope that the Government will press—at least in the long term if they cannot achieve it immediately—for the total abandonment of beam trawling in Community waters. I accept that some species will be more difficult to catch without beam trawling but as there is no way to ensure effective policing by Community enforcement authorities or by national authorities I see no alternative to banning it altogether. I hope that the Minister will take that very seriously.
On the long-term joint North sea herring stock shared between Norway and the Community in areas IV A and IV B the Minister said that up to 60,900 tonnes could be caught, including swap arrangements with other areas. Again, may we have an assurance that these are not just paper fish and that that quantity of herring can actually be fished? Moreover, will it find a market at a price sufficient to recompense the fishermen for catching it so that this delicious, edible fish is not turned into fishmeal due to intervention prices? We have properly allowed for intervention, but in the past year there have been periods during which the landing price of herring was so low as not to recompense the fishermen. To increase the quota in those circumstances is an extraordinary exercise in marketing. If herring cannot be sold for human consumption, are the Government satisfied that there should be an increase in the quota and the minimum price?

Dr. Godman: I asked the Minister earlier whether he was satisfied with the performance of the Sea Fish Industry Authority in promoting commercial species, especially in view of the additional catches which may or may not exist. We all welcome the increased quotas, but in those circumstances the authority has a very important role in persuading the consumer to buy the fish at its real value.

Mr. Hughes: I agree entirely. The difficulty is that after 10 years without herring the housewife has lost the appetite for it and in many cases has never learnt the skill of cooking it. It is regrettable, but people do not know how to put the oatmeal around the herring to dry it out, so there are technical difficulties in persuading the consumer. The Sea Fish Industry Authority and other bodies certainly have a major promotional and educational role to play in convincing people of the excellence of herring. My point, however, is that giving an extra quota of herring to be turned into fishmeal has a distinctly distasteful element. The British people should be educated to enjoy herring as real fish rather than as bacon and eggs put through a pig and a hen.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) may wish to say something about the Manx fisheries. Are we satisfied with the arrangements for the policing and control of those fisheries? I appreciate that there are constitutional difficulties which it would not be appropriate to discuss today. Nevertheless, I have found that the size of kippers available on the Isle of Man is often considerably below the minimum size permitted for mainland herring catches. Is the Minister satisfied that catches of undersized herrings which would be illegal elsewhere in the United Kingdom are not being allowed on the Isle of Man?
As for the sole and plaice allocation in area VII, is the Minister satisfied that sufficient stock exists to be caught? I have been in touch with many ports on both sides of the southern Irish sea and many have stated that there is an absolute shortage of decent-sized sole and plaice in those waters. If the fish are not there to be caught, an increase in the quota means not real fish but phoney fish and a phoney deal.
The Minister referred to common enforcement and the inspectorate. It would be foolish to suggest that 1 April is a proper day to introduce standard logbooks. I regret to say that I still have little faith in the willingness of some of our Community partners to enforce the common fisheries policy with the rigour with which we have enforced it in this country. However much we welcome most of the proposals and however much we thank the Government on behalf of the British fishing industry, unless our industry can be assured that it is not being discriminated against as a result of differential enforcement regimes in different countries those thanks will have a hollow ring.
I urge the Government to come back to us as soon as there are more effective arrangements for the enforcement of total allowable catches and quotas so that all fishermen sailing from ports in these islands will know that they are being treated fairly and equally compared with their fellow fishermen from Belgium, Holland, France and Germany. At present, our fishermen still do not believe that that is the case. However much the House welcomes what has been achieved—I certainly would not wish to do other than assist the removal of the parliamentary reserve that the Minister properly put on — in another sense there

must still be a parliamentary reserve in that we enforce the common policies whereas many of our colleagues do not—and that rankles throughout our fishing industry.

Mr. Barry Henderson: There have been too many statesmanlike speeches from the Front Benches. The only point of comparison between my speech and those is that mine will be shorter.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on what has been achieved in establishing total allowable catches and quotas. Congratulations should go to the entire Council of Ministers, but there is no doubt that the contribution of those who are loosely described as the United Kingdom Fisheries Ministers has been substantial, and I was glad that the Opposition spokesman fully acknowleged that. The fact that the agreement has been reached in time for the start of the year is an achievement in itself.
All this bodes well for the future development of the common fisheries policy. I heard the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, hot-foot from Brussels after the agreement was reached, speaking at a substantial function for fishermen in Fife. He certainly recognised what had been achieved, and I am glad to see from the federation's brief that in the sober light of a January day it still supports the conclusions expressed by Willie Hay in Fife in December.
The anxiety that I heard among the fishermen in my constituency was not about quotas or total allowable catches. Their present anxiety is because they are experiencing difficulty in finding the fish. This gives me a slight shiver of anxiety in that I do hope that the scientists are right in their estimates of what are appropriate total allowable catches. They have been wrong before and I hope that the catches being agreed are appropriate in the present situation with regard to conservation.
There is deep anxiety in the fishing community in the east of Scotland about the way in which the Community has allowed the bycatch on Norway pout fishing to grow from 10 to 18 per cent. It is a large percentage anyway, but it is a fishery which tends to be carried out, as industrial fishery is, in pretty large tonnages. The amount of good fish that can be picked up in that kind of bycatch is bound to have some significant effect in the overall determination of what is an appropriate amount of fish to be caught over any particular period.
I understand that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is planning an experimental voyage to prove its point that that amount of bycatch is too great. If that voyage proves the Federation's point, as it believes it will, I hope that my right hon. Friend will return to the question vigorously in due course in the Council of Ministers.

Dr. Godman: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how effective he thinks inspection is of these catches of, say, Norway pout, and how effective the inspectors can be in determining the level of the bycatch?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman raises a good question which I would be happy to leave as a rhetorical one for the moment, but I accept the point which tie appears to make.
I wish next to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the importance of achieving a sensible agreement between the European Community and Norway on a long-term


share of the catches of herring. I was glad to hear him emphasise in opening the debate that we remain strongly of the view that what Norway was suggesting earlier is unacceptable, but I think it is important in the long term that agreement be reached. It is not sensible to have two separate ways of handling these matters. It is a common resource and I hope that with goodwill between Europe and Norway for the future we will have a better arrangement for the management of this fishery.
Lastly, on the question of the on-shore processing and distribution of fish, I think that much needs to be done. If I may make a constituency point, something needs to be done about Pitten Weem harbour where Fife regional council, which owns it, has blown hot and cold for some time about necessary improvements to the harbour and developments of it. Having stripped out its budget provision for the work, it has now reinstated the provision, and I hope that the Scottish Office will encourage it to continue to pursue such improvements. It is necessary for safety and it is necessary if East Nuek is to continue to play its historic role in contributing to the effectiveness of the fishing industry on the east coast of Scotland. I hope that, among other things, the Scottish Office will discuss with the council the appropriateness of promoting a provisional order so that when harbour works are agreed they can be embarked upon speedily.
It is in the way in which we distribute and sell fish ultimately that we ensure a prosperous fishing industry, and the arrangements which have been made in Brussels recently give more encouragement for the future than has existed for some time.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is rare for those of us who usually gather on these Benches to praise Ministers rather than to bury them. I do not want to be quite as lavish in my praise as was my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) because his lavish praise makes my somewhat cooler offerings seem churlish by comparison, but I think that a certain amount of cool praise is appropriate in the situation in which we find ourselves with regard to these documents. This is the first debate in my recollection in which I do not feel totally justified in adopting a wholly hostile reaction to EEC documents. This is for two prime reasons.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), this is an agreement for the year ahead which was settled in December of the previous year. That in itself is an achievement. It would seem that Irish logic applied to the EEC produces sense, and that is what we have in an agreement made in advance. These catches and our share of them hold out a better prospect for the industry in the year ahead. It is therefore right to give credit for that to Ministers. Too much praise might go to their heads too quickly and it is such an unusual event that we do not want to repeat it. However, in my view, it has been particularly difficult for the present incumbents in the Department to follow their predecessors whose team was essentially a public relations act rather than an act of real achievement — Ministers who got the glory and then moved on, leaving the present incumbents to tidy up the situation and to clear up the undoubted difficulties which in this instance I think have been successfully cleared up.
I do not want to go further because the praise would go to their heads, so I will praise with faint damns from this point onwards.
We have to recognise that this is an improvement from a very bad position, and a particularly bad position in Grimsby where the fishing industry and its catches reached depths last year that we do not wish to plumb again this year. That is why it is so important to have these documents presented to us. The industry has been hanging on by its fingertips and the improvement has been achieved from a very bad position.
These are quotas that we would have regarded and rejected as inadequate three to four years ago in the negotiations then taking place for what we thought, and still think, are Britain's rights. They are certainly far smaller than we would have achieved had we been in the stronger position of being able to control our own destinies and our own fishing grounds. They must be viewed in that context. Improvement is not a compensation for the harm that has been done to the industry over the past few years. However, the improvement is welcome. The improvement in the cod quota is particularly welcome for Grimsby because we are a cod port. It is particularly welcome for the British United Trawlers vessels in Grimsby and for the pair of fishers whose cod catches are much bigger than the rest and are crucial to our port. Our catches were substantially down last year and the British United Trawlers vessels were laid up for six weeks and resumed fishing only when they had a new allocation from the sectoral quota. They will be hard pushed, even now, not to catch what they are allocated but to catch economically at these levels. The improvement is still welcome for all that.
But even this improvement in the quotas other than for cod is achieved at some cost. The cod quota increase and the total allowable catch increase seem, on the evidence, justified, as there is undoubtedly a greater stock abundance. There was a good year class in 1979 and the new catches seem realistic. But the others are more doubtful. In the EEC, where everything is politicised and where it becomes a game of trying to increase the catches to keep everybody happy, I wonder whether the scientists are not being put under some pressure as a result, and whether political fish are not being created in order to satisfy the demands put on the stocks.
In particular, I wonder whether the increase in plaice is due to Dutch pressure to be allowed to take legally what they have been taking illegally until now in excess of their allowances. I also wonder whether the whiting improvement is a way of sweetening a disastrous decision to increase the Danish bycatches. The increase in bycatches was cut from 20 per cent. to 18 per cent. and the Minister may think that he fought a good fight, but I believe that we should have refused to accept any increase. The increase from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent. in bycatches was wrong on whatever terms, and is generally regarded as such. It was a straightforward political decision, and it means that an inviolate part of an agreed collective package has been unravelled for the convenience of one member state.

Dr. Godman: Am I not right in thinking that this derogation concerning the increase in the bycatch allowed to Danish fishermen fishing for Norway pout ends on 31 May 1985? Perhaps we should be seeking an assurance from the Minister that that increase will not be continued.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right and has taken the words out of my mouth. Even though the increase has been reduced from 20 per cent. to 18 per cent., we want an assurance from the Minister that it will not be maintained. It is a question of British national interest not to allow that increase in Danish bycatches. Even if we overruled and it was deemed not to be a question of national interest, our moral position in refusing to accept an increase from 10 per cent. is strong. The Danish case is opportunitistic to say the least. If the increase is sustained, the Danes will get away with it once again. That is the essence of what has happened.
While I am talking about the iniquities of Denmark, perhaps I can seek an assurance from the Minister. His predecessor assured us that the 2,000 tonnes of cod that the Danes were deliberately given over their total allowable catch for three years only would cease at the end of next year. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that assurance?
Welcome as it is, there are problems with the settlement. The first problem is that of political fish. The second is that the policing system is still not adequate. The long-delayed log books are at last coming into being, although to some ridicule from the industry, which says that 1 April is an appropriate date. But it must realise that the log books are an essential part of any policing system. However, they must be combined with an adequate Common Market force for policing and an adequate system for penalising those who catch more than their allocations. What has happened with the Germans and the North sea saithe — it was their over-fishing that led to the closure of the joint stocks, to the fury of the French—shows the need for some sanction to stop that going on. The same thing has happened with the Dutch and the mackerel. There has not been, and there does not seem to be, an effective punishment.
If the system is to operate properly and the allocations are to be respected, and if we, who are not necessarily the most law-abiding but are the best policed fishing industry in the Common Market, are to have faith in the system, we must have an assurance that transgressions will be penalised.
The negotiations with Spain are hanging over the industry. Spain has a massive fishing fleet that would be introduced to the Common Market and would compete with the fishing effort which is already too large for the available stocks. That represents a danger from which no transitional arrangements can adequately protect Britain in particular and Common Market fishing in general.
It seems that there may be an eight-year derogation with negotiations for a further two years, and the possibility of a further five-year derogation, if those negotiations do not succeed. In other words, the Spanish fleet may be held back for 15 years. At the end of that period the principle of access to the common fisheries stocks, which was developed essentially by other member states to get their fishing vessels into British fishing grounds, will be used by the Spanish against the entire Common Market, especially against France.
Fifteen years is a short time in fishing, especially when one considers that stocks are already threatened by the massive fishing effort. At the end of that period there will be a threat to both the United Kingdom and the entire EC fishing effort. However, there is a more immediate problem. Will the Minister tell the House what is proposed in respect of disguised or flag of convenience fishing? The

Spaniards have already begun to use that. When Spain joins the EEC, we shall no longer have the protection of the requirement for 70 per cent. of crews in Spanish vessels which register in Britain to be EEC members because Spain will be an EEC member. That requirement is not being adequately enforced now, and when Spain joins the EEC it will be eliminated totally.
Because of unemployment in the fishing industry, a large number of skippers and crew members who know our grounds will be only too anxious to take jobs on Spanish vessels which will be free to register under a flag of convenience and to take advantage of British quotas by registering as British vessels. Therefore, what transitional arrangements will apply in respect of Spanish vessels registering in Britain when the 70 per cent. EEC requirement is no longer valid? What safeguards does the Minister propose?
The Spanish negotiations are being handled almost entirely by the Foreign Office. What input has MAFF into those negotiations? It seems that the Foreign Office is handling the negotiations in a closed and secretive fashion. As a representative of a fishing port and as someone who is not 100 per cent. enthusiastic about the Common Market, I am always suspicious of the Foreign Office handling negotiations that affect a vital national interest, which it can discount because of its Euro-enthusiasm, as, indeed, it discounted British fishing interests in the original entry negotiations.
To what extent is MAFF being consulted, and to what extent is the industry being consulted? What recognition is given to the industry's views in the negotiations? If the negotiations are handled by the Foreign Office without effective consultations with the industry, we have a formula for a further betrayal of our fishing industry.
In those circumstances, I am not prepared to welcome Spain to the joys of EEC membership — it has had ruinous consequences for Britain. We should use these negotiations to maintain an intransigent position to achieve better concessions and a firmer and more tolerable deal for our fishermen in the face of the threat from that massive fishing fleet.
My final point concerns only Grimsby. The fishing industry there has had a difficult and dangerous year, as I am sure the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) would agree. It has hung on by its fingertips. It is crucial to keep the industry going, and I believe that we have achieved that. The danger of the landing company collapsing has been averted, although I should have preferred the landing company to have been run by a co-operative of merchants, owners, lumpers and the town, so that all interests were integrated. However, we can still work towards that development. The important thing is that the landing company is still in operation and there is no danger of the port being closed.
The danger was averted by carrying out some drastic surgery. The lumper landing force, which used to be 123, has been reduced to 60. The remaining men have made a magnificent effort and have worked extremely hard to make the new system work. No vessel has been turned away, and there are far better prospects for the port, but the costs at Grimsby are still high. Associated British Ports has a major role to play in helping to reduce those costs. Grimsby dock charges represent 5 per cent. of grossings, whereas in Peterhead the figure is only 2 per cent. Grimsby's landing costs represent 9 per cent. of grossings, whereas at Cuxhaven the figure is about 4 per cent.
The integrated developments operations study which has just become available to Humberside Members was commissioned by the county council from Graham Moss Associates. It states:
The National Dock Labour Board scheme is one reason for these high costs, but cost allocation by Associated British Ports is one of equal if not more importance.
It adds that Associated British Ports is somewhat removed from the industry, and suggests that the company could write off all or part of the outstanding loan repayments presently levied on the port as a means of reducing the costs and helping to sustain the port's efforts to fight back.
The real threat to Grimsby lies in the problem of the British United Trawlers CAT class vessels. Although rather elderly, they are the last big, year-round vessels in Grimsby, and their catches are essential to keep the port going in winter and to provide the bulk catch which the seiner fleet cannot provide. These vessels were fishing profitably at the end of 1984, but their financial position is difficult and their fate is continually under review. It is being reviewed by the main board in London, but its perspectives are different from those in Grimsby. In London, the interests of a fishing port and the industry may not be as important as they are in Grimsby. Our nightmare, which is repeated month by month, if not week by week, is that that company will accept decommissioning grants for those vessels. It may take them out of fishing or lay them up. Lay-up would be a serious problem—almost a disaster—for Grimsby.
This matter is urgent because the terms of EEC aid to the fishing industry mean that those vessels do not qualify for FEOGA help for replacement or renewal. The cut-off point is 33 m, which is just more than 100 ft. Those vessels are 130 ft long—too big to qualify for FEOGA grants for the reconstruction or renovation that would allow them to continue fishing. They qualify for the 25 per cent. White Fish Authority grant, but they cannot obtain the further 25 per cent. FEOGA grant either for rebuilding or for refurbishment and modernisation. Unless some special inducement is held out to the firm to persuade it to rebuild those vessels, the decision will be taken on the strictly economic grounds of what will benefit the shareholders. That being so, the vessels are likely to be decommissioned while grants last—or taken off fishing. They would be difficult to replace even if they qualified for the FEOGA grant as well as the White Fish Authority grant. The vessels would cost £1·3 million to £1·5 million to replace. They are hugely expensive. However, fishing needs all-purpose vessels—CAT class or smaller—to enable us to fish all year round and to provide the basic cash to sustain the market and to pay the charges to keep the port going.
Without help additional to that currently provided, it is difficult to see how those vessels can be kept going or replaced. They are the linchpin of fishing in Grimsby, and they are threatened. The Minister should consider that problem. It is crucially important to concentrate the industry at focal points such as Grimsby where there is a concentration of facilities—not only the market but the ice, the engineering and the tradition of going to sea. To maintain that concentration, we need vessels such as the CAT class vessels. Yet the present financial arrangements do not permit us either to extend the life of those vessels or to replace them if they are decommissioned. That

cannot be done because the EEC grant is not available. The only alternative is some national supplement to the White Fish Authority grant.
The problem is urgent. The fate of the industry is decided from week to week and from month to month. Without a solution to this problem, all the Minister's efforts to win for us improved quotas and catches will be in vain in Grimsby. Without those vessels, the industry in Grimsby will fall back into the old trap of escalating costs pressing on a shrinking fleet. That is a formula for economic disaster, but it may well become a reality if the flagships of the fleet are knocked out.
When strict economics and the needs of fishing pull in different directions, as in this case, it is crucial that we remember that this is an interim period. The long-term prospects for fishing are good. Investment decisions will look very different in three, four or five years time, when catches and market returns are better. It is crucial that we should be enabled to survive until decisions can be taken in a more optimistic climate. Survival means help for the maintenance of the CAT class vessels in Grimsby until they can inherit better times. Without them, we shall hardly have a viable fishing industry to inherit those better times. That is the quandary of Grimsby. To a lesser extent, it is the quandary of fishing in general. The Minister has a responsibility not only to offer us better quotas—as he has done—but to help us to survive to inherit the better times that I hope lie ahead.

Mr. David Harris: I am grateful for your kindness, Mr. Speaker, in calling me twice today. I realise that I am pushing my luck. I do so on the grounds that, just as milk production is of vital importance to my constituency, fishing is still a major industry there, too, especially in the port of Newlyn.
I welcome the optimism with which the House looks forward to the future of the industry. I wish that I could share it. I fully appreciate the achievements that have been made on the administrative side, especially in the Commission and the Council of Ministers. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has played a major part in that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) reminded us, there is an absence of fish in many areas. My right hon. Friend referred to sole, especially in the Bristol channel. The shrinkage of the stock there is deeply worrying. My right hon. Friend also referred to the beam trawling activities of the Brixham fleet. I have watched the build-up of the Brixham beaming fleet with some anxiety. I wonder whether it has something to do with our old friend the flag of convenience. I wonder how many of the beamers that proudly sail from Brixham are in sole British ownership. That brings me to what is known as quota fishing—member states finding more ways in which to transfer shipping to other nations in the Community so that they gain access to that country's quotas.
In regard to flags of convenience, I fully share the apprehension of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about Spain. It has recently developed the practice of flags of convenience, which practice has been swept out to sea by the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which lays down manning requirements. As he said, that legislation's effects will be swept away when Spain joins the European Community. People


in Cornwall are worried that the Government might have had second thoughts about amending the requirements on the registration of fishing boats as a means of tightening up the law to stop flag of convenience fishing. I urge my right hon. Friend to examine this matter carefully with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport with a view to the provisions of the merchant shipping Bill which is to be presented to the House.
My main worry is about Spain and its accession to the Community. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, that poses an enourmous threat to our fishing fleet, nowhere greater than in my part of the world as I represent the constituency that is nearest to Spain. One has only to go off Lands End or around the Isles of Scilly to see Spanish boats fishing unlicensed. My right hon. Friend referred to the continuation of the interim agreement with Spain which allows that. I remember, however, an incident at the end of last year when a Spanish trawler which was fishing illegally off the Irish coast was sunk. We all know that Spanish vessels, whether licensed or unlicensed chance their arms and go in for illegal fishing. My plea to my right hon. Friend is to ensure that our vigilance in regard to illegal fishing is not lessened. I draw his attention to the vital importance of the Nimrod flights which monitor the activities of the Spanish fleet and try to weed out the boats which are fishing illegally.
Enforcement has been referred to by many hon. Members. Like them I am far from satisfied by the international community effort of the inspectorate. It made a good start. There have been gratifying results of its activities certainly in regard to Dutch overfishing. I thoroughly applaud what it is doing. As has been said on many occasions in the past in the House, that force is woefully inadequate in numbers to carry out the task which has been put on it by the Council of Ministers. The number of Community inspectors must be increased. Until there is a genuine attempt to apply the conservation measures there will be not just dissatisfaction but real anger among our fishermen.

Mr. James Wallace: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate these Community documents on fishery development and the common fisheries policy. I particularly welcome the fact that in a debate on 10 January we are able to discuss the total allowable catches which have already been agreed for 1985. They have been widely acknowledged as favourable for the industry. Therefore, it would be churlish of me not to give credit to the Minister, to his junior Minister, Lord Gray in the Scottish Office and to their European colleagues for having managed to get the TACs in place in time.
We should not go overboard in our praise for getting the common fisheries policy to work, as it was always intended that it should work. If possible, at the beginning of the fishing year the industry should know where it stands. It is a mark of the uncertainties that have dogged the industry over many years that it is with a sense of disbelief that we find that the policy works. That is why it is an occasion for mutual backslapping. Nevertheless, the industry is grateful for the work that has been done. That has been acknowledged and I join in the acknowledgment.
As the Minister said, not everything has yet been settled. Perhaps most importantly, there remains the vexed

question of agreement between the Community and Norway about the share-out of North Sea herring. There was great relief throughout the industry that no concession was made to the excessive Norwegian demands during the latter part of 1984. The industry has made well known its outright opposition to Norway's demands. The industry and Opposition Members are grateful for the fact that the Government have taken a firm stand. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) said, they led the way in taking a firm stand. We would encourage them to continue doing so if Norway persists in making extravagant claims.
Equally, the interim arrangements form no basis for a long-term solution. The fear must be that Norway will take out of its own sector a substantial amount of fish which, when taken with what comes out of the Community sector, will not be in the best long-term interests of conservation of the species. It was recognised in the record of the meeting on 13 December, which is attached to the explanatory memorandum of 21 December, that the parties would have to agree to discuss the matter further in 1985. The Minister has said fairly that the parties are far apart. My request would be that the discussions take place at the earliest possible date and that the matter is not left until the tail end of the year without agreement. There was some surprise within the industry that Norway did not use the bargaining counters which many people thought she would use with regard to the other species on which agreement had to be reached. We may speculate about why that was not done in 1984. However, an early start to the discussions on a long-term agreement for the herring share-out is important lest at the tail end of the year when a further agreement on other white fish species has to be reached, that bargaining counter is again put in Norway's hands.

Mr. Jopling: I should like to pin the hon. Gentleman down on what he has just said. Does he not agree that no agreement was better than a bad agreement?

Mr. Wallace: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me, but I said at the beginning of my remarks that we are relieved that there was no agreement rather than a bad agreement. It is accepted on all sides that at some stage there must be an agreement, and the sooner we discuss the terms, the better. I do not dispute the fact that no agreement on the terms proposed by Norway was better than proceeding on that basis.
The Minister could not give an assurance that there would be no premature stoppage in the future when some countries had not fished their full quota. That will cause great concern within the industry. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, enforcement is one way of tackling that problem. If it can be proved that some countries have offended, unless there are penalties which can be enforced, there will be a danger that the whole common fisheries policy agreement will become unstitched. What will happen if it is established that a country has overfished a particular species, thereby depriving another country of fishing its full quota? The Minister did not say whether in the following year there would be a reallocation to deal with such a misdemeanour. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say something about that in his reply.
In relation to TACs, I wish specifically to refer to the sprat fishery and the closures proposed on the Firth of


Forth and the Moray firth. These matters are important to the communities affected. When this was raised in an amendment tabled by my hon. Friends in a similar debate on 7 December 1983—we proposed that there should be an exemption from the prohibition for boats under 40 ft in length—the Minister said that he would consider that proposal in the ensuing year in the light of scientific advice. What scientific advice was made available to him?
The Government have been properly congratulated on getting TACs in place, but it is a matter of regret that we did not discuss what happened at the Council of Ministers in September. The hon. Members for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and for Great Grimsby have already referred to the increase in the bycatch of fish for human consumption within the Norway pout fishery from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent. That caused great resentment throughout the industry. Although the four months that have passed have allowed passions to cool, it is important to put on record the outrage and sense of betrayal which was marked by a dignified walk-out on the Minister of State by the representatives of the fishing industry who attended the Council meeting in Brussels.
Many of them felt that when the common fisheries policy was negotiated in January 1983, it contained many compromises and concessions. It was accepted by the industry, although one could scarcely say that it was welcomed. Indeed, many fishermen in my own constituency did not accept it. The agreement on the size of the pout box and bycatch was an important and significant aspect of the final deal. When it appeared that the Danes had sought to unstitch that particular and important aspect of the common fisheries policy and had succeeded in doing so, it was not surprising that there was such an outcry from the industry.
In my own constituency there is particular anger and fear that, because one of the more attractive areas for the Norway pout fishery is to the north-east of Unst the increased bycatch will, within a very short space of time, have an adverse effect upon the white fish stocks in an important fishing ground for the Shetland fleet. It has already been said with regard to the herring fishery that above all else we should be considering fishing for human consumption. It is important to note that we are putting in danger fishing for human consumption in order to promote industrial fishing by the Danes.
I am grateful to the Minister for the correspondence he has had with me. As has already been said, the percentage increase will apply only until 31 May. Tonight I should like to have an assurance from the Treasury bench that the Government will resist any extension of that increase beyond 31 May. It has already been said by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East that between now and the expiry of the experiment Scottish fishermen will be monitoring the situation. As well as scientific advice, I am sure that they will take into account the results of the monitoring exercise to be carried out by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
I should also like to know whether the Minister believes, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that this is a matter of national importance to an important industry. Would the Minister be prepared to invoke the Luxembourg compromise? Indeed, is he able to say whether he can invoke it? In the briefing note from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to

which reference has already been made, concern is expressed by the federation, based upon an interpretation of the Luxembourg compromise which it received from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, that this is an area where the Luxembourg compromise may not be able to be invoked. We should welcome the Minister's clarification of this point.
With regard to beam trawling and the regulations which are before us, I share the views of those hon. Members who have already said that beam trawling is unacceptable. It ruins the seabed and disrupts the food chain. We note that the Government are not entirely satisfied about the efficiency of the proposals and that they will seek to improve them. I recall that beam trawling was the subject of discussion when the inshore fisheries legislation relating to Scotland was before the House during the last session. Under that legislation the Government have the power to ban beam trawling within six miles of the Scottish coast. As the Minister who is to reply is a Scottish Office Minister, he may be able to indicate whether the Government intend at an early stage to ban beam trawling within six miles of the Scottish coast.
On Spanish entry, I do not wish to add to the pertinent points that have been made by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I shall look forward to the Minister's answers to those points. It is important that we should extend the Community and underpin democracy in Spain. However, we must not neglect the important fisheries aspect. That aspect was neglected when the United Kingdom entered the Community in 1973. We shall wish to give the closest attention to the particular arrangements which are made for the fishing industry.
Finally, I turn to a constituency point with regard to a possible amendment of the common fisheries policy. The preamble to the common fisheries policy, dated 25 January 1983, referred to the need to
safeguard the particular needs of regions where local populations are especially dependent on fisheries and related industries.
Article VII of that agreement set up the Orkney and Shetland or north of Scotland box to carry out the hope expressed in the preamble to safeguard the particular needs of that area.
There is restrictive licensing on vessels over 26 m in length which are fishing commercial species. France has allocated 52 licences, the United Kingdom 62, Germany 12 and Belgium 2. In a recent reply that I received, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) said that in the six months from April to October last year the total number of vessels from France was 57, from the United Kingdom 31, and from Belgium 2.
Quite apart from not controlling vessels under 26 m in length it has been maintained by the fishermen in Orkney and Shetland that, as a measure to give protection to a sensitive region, the number of licences was too high. That opinion, expressed at the time when the common fisheries policy was agreed, seems to have been borne out by the fact that we find that what the scheme allows is in excess of the actual level of fishing. Therefore, what is meant to be a protective licensing scheme in fact permits a greater level of fishing than has been taking place. Will the Government consider that matter again in the light of their experience and see what steps can be taken to reduce the number of licences in that area?
The fishing industry, often in peripheral parts of the country, provides an important part of the economic structure or backbone of the Community. Therefore, it is in all our interests that the fishing industry should thrive. We welcome the steps that have been taken to get certainty in the industry through the increase in TACs and through their being in place. However, several points still cause great concern and we should appreciate the Government's attention to them.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is a great pleasure to speak in a debate where there is a virtual unanimity of view. I, too, want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the tremendous work that they have done to bring before the House the excellent TACs.
I do not want to speak at great length or in great detail. Obviously, the health and welfare of the fishing industry of Great Grimsby has a great impact on my constituency. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has a far more detailed knowledge of the fishing industry in his constituency than I have, but I thought that he was a tiny bit churlish in what he had to say earlier. I know that he is deeply concerned about the tremendous problems, which I acknowledge exist in his constituency. I would be the first to recognise that the past year has been difficult for the fishing industry in his constituency. But my right hon. Friend is entitled to three unequivocal cheers for the TACs. Although the hon. Gentleman was unable to give my right hon. Friend those three cheers, his local paper was. It said:
Grimsby welcomes deal. Bumper fishing catch!
There is no doubt about the view of the local people in our area.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may not have recognised the strangled cry that emitted from my lips at the beginning of my speech. It was one cheer.

Mr. Brown: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is not representing clearly the view of his constituents that appears in that headline. However, I take the point that he makes.
The fact is, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that the new quota arrangements will be beneficial to the BUT fleet, which I know has been anxious over the past two or three years about the long-term future. Mr. Nigel Atkins, the representative of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations based in Grimsby said:
This is certainly a favourable deal … Quotas are high enough to cause us no problems.
It should be placed on record that the representative of Grimsby's seine fleet has also said that the deal gives owners a much greater freedom to operate their fleets.
Therefore, it is important for us to recognise what has been achieved. I, like the hon. Member for Grimsby, am no friend of the EEC and I was sceptical about what the common fisheries policy could achieve. I submit that it is not necessarily the common fisheries policy which is responsible for the excellent arrangements that are being placed before us for consideration today, but that that has much more to do with the negotiating skill of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It also has to do with a desire to reach a consensus on the part of the Council of Ministers, and, indeed, the European Commission. It is not very often that

one finds the desire to obtain an agreement. It does not have much to do with the common fisheries policy. It has much more to do with the desire and the will to make an arrangement that meets the approval of the fishing industry, not only in this country but in other countries in the Community.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke of other problems that beset the fishing industry in south Humberside. He referred to the problem of high port charges. I appreciate that that falls outside the responsibility of Ministers in this debate. I mention it only because we have constantly pressed the Government on the issue, particularly in regard to the lumper force. I place on record the tremendous co-operation that came from the lumpers when the Grimsby fishing industry had to take a difficult decision over the landing company there. I am the second in the House tonight to acknowledge that the lumpers have co-operated tremendously in trying to ensure that there is a company so that fish can be landed in the port of Grimsby.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke in an intervention about the role of the Sea Fish Industry Authority in the long term. I was privileged to attend a presentation by the authority shortly before Christmas and was greatly encouraged by the way in which it recognises that it has a responsibility to ensure that the marketing side of its operations are taken fully into account.
In that connection, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), who said that it was important to have a campaign to ensure that the British housewife consumes more fish, and he was referring particularly to herring. I have great respect for the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which acknowledges that it has much to do on the marketing side.
Some difficult decisions will have to be taken by ports such as Grimsby in relation to modernisation. The Sea Fish Industry Authority is concerned to ensure that we in Britain have the same port facilities as exist on the other side of the North sea. About a year ago the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I were privileged to visit the ports of Esbjerg and Thyboron in Denmark, where we were impressed by and envious of the investment that has taken place in the infrastructure there. We should like to see such developments taking place in our ports, and I am sure that the Sea Fish Industry Authority is aware of the need to encourage port modernisation.
Viewing the situation facing Great Grimsby from the perspective of Cleethorpes — or perhaps I should say from the pier at Cleethorpes—I am far more optimistic about the future than I was a year ago. That is due in large measure to the skill and patience of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to whom I pay tribute for what they have done to give 1985 a good start for the south Humberside fishing industry. Despite other problems, we look to the future with some optimism. Optimism breeds confidence and confidence breeds success. The TACs that have been negotiated can breed the confidence for the future for which we have been looking.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I am delighted to take part in the debate, because it will give me the opportunity of putting to the House some of the


problems that the fishing industry in Hull faces, and to discuss the effect that these new quotas will have on the fishing industry in Hull.
A number of hon. Members have complimented the Minister on arriving at the TACs early on, and that is a good thing; so I, too, compliment the Minister. It must be good for the industry to know where it stands in terms of its catches, as that enables the industry to plan its future with more certainty. Tomorrow, I shall be having a meeting in Hull, and I shall visit the Hull docks. The people down there will ask me what this will mean to Hull in terms of jobs in the port and of retaining the processing and distribution industry in Hull, and the answer is that I do not know.
The morass of detail of these reports is quite impossible to interpret at a glance. I stand back from this, as I am rather bemused by the detail, and am therefore unaware what the effect will be. However, a report has come out, which I received a few minutes before coming into the Chamber. I hope that this report will provide the turning point for the port of Hull to go from the tremendous decline of the past 10 or 15 years to regeneration.
The decline of the port has emanated from the loss of fishing opportunity in the Icelandic waters, through the cod war, and from the common fisheries policy. We now have a male unemployment rate of over 20 per cent., which is a serious problem. The catching industry has been devastated, although the processing and distribution industry is strong and thriving.
I can give some figures to show the scale of the devastation. In 1970 we used to land about 140,000 tonnes in Hull, and that is now down to 8,000 tonnes, much of which is Icelandic container traffic, which brings in a lot of the fish. To bring in the 140,000 tonnes, we had about 120 large vessels, freezers and large trawlers; and that figure is down to 3. It is the effect of having all one's eggs in one basket, and when the Icelandic problems arose and the common fisheries policy started to evolve, we had the wrong kind of capacity to exploit the existing opportunities. Therefore, the quotas are crucial, as are vessel licences.
We have reached the trough in this decline. I fervently hope and, although I am not over-optimistic, believe, that we are at the point from which the port of Hull can start to revive. The formation of the Hull Fishing Landing Company recently is a great example of the way in which local authorities, the industry and the workers can get together to preserve their industry, in this case fish catching. In addition to the loss of much of the catching fleet, we have lost the Torry research station and there have been substantial cuts in the college of higher education courses in fishing. There has been a serious decline.
In Hull, people feel bitter about the way in which the owners of the vessels have received compensation for the loss of fishing opportunity, whereas the people who work in the industry have, to all intents and purposes, received nothing. Since I have been in the House, my attempts to persuade Ministers in both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Employment to get something done to give these men, who have served the industry and their country so well, both in the last war and in the Falklands conflict, something for what they have done, have got nowhere.
I sent the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—a list of the members of the British Fishermen's Association. The hon. Gentleman commented in the letter he sent back to me on the length of service of those men. The list showed that men who have spent 30, 40 or 45 years in the industry have not received any compensation. Is that the way to treat people who have worked in the industry for so long? I hope that the Minister will take an initiative and will press the Community to devise a financial scheme of income guarantees for redundant fishermen. That should not be done by adding levies per tonne of fish landed, because that would be the wrong way to go about it. Will the Minister get together with his colleagues in other Departments on this initiative?
Will the Minister investigate the possibility of providing a common state retirement pension policy for all fishermen at the age of 55? Fishing is one of the most dangerous industries in which to work. It is far more dangerous than the mining industry in terms of deaths and serious accidents. It is wrong to force men at the age of 55 to go to sea. Essentially, I am asking for the people who worked in this industry for so long to receive levels of compensation similar to those received by those who have worked in, for example, the steel industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is no longer in the Chamber, said in a speech on European Community budgets:
A brother of mine was given the princely sum of £385 by his firm after 19 years of service with it. The firm received £400 per gross registered tonne for each vessel that it decommissioned."—[Official Report, 11 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 978.]
It seems that the Minister, the Government and the European Community believe that one gross registered tonne is more important than a man who has served the industry for 19 years. Many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, have pressed the Government to introduce some form of compensation. My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) have introduced private Member's Bills on this subject. While I am a Member I shall press the Government continually to come up with some compensation for these men. They deserve compensation, and I believe that it is reasonable to demand it. At the moment those men are thrown on the scrap heap in the most despicable way. I am resentful of the Government for dealing with the matter in this fashion.
I congratulate the Humberside county council and the Hull city council in particular on the way in which they have taken the initiative to regenerate the industry in Hull and to ensure that the Hull and Humberside integration development operation study was commissioned. The study attempts to regenerate the regional economy and to create jobs. In brief, it proposes that there should be some additional catching capacity and a middle-water fleet, although not a large one—it will clearly never be so great as that which we had in the heyday of deep sea fishing from Hull — to support the processing and distribution industries in the area.
In addition, the study refers to the development of the dock area. Only a few months ago, Associated British Ports threatened to close the dock area, claiming that it was losing about £500,000 per annum, but negotiations between that organisation and the city and county councils now seem to be bearing fruit. It is perhaps too early to be


wisure, but we hope to come up with a fundable proposition. We envisage that the area will also be used for tourism and for industrial and housing development, all of which will provide a total revenue stream to make the dock area viable as we can no longer rely on big fishing catches to fund the port as we did in the old days.
If the Minister has seen the report, does he intend to back it; and how many jobs and what catching capacity are likely to ensue? If he has not yet seen the report, perhaps he will answer those questions in writing.

Mr. Henderson: It would be interesting to know who commissioned the report.

Mr. Randall: It was funded by the EEC and carried out by consultants, Graham Moss Associates. The aim was to see how we could tap into the the various EEC funds. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the European funding systems are extremely difficult to understand— that is why the report was needed — but we now have a blueprint on which we hope to build in the near future.
A study of that kind needs money. I understand that the Community has allocated £21 million for regional budgets for compensation for loss of fishing industries, of which about £8 million has been allocated to the Hull area. The Euro-Member for Humberside is on record in the local press as saying that that £8 million has now been allocated. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is true and exactly what the position is.
The accession of Spain is a source of considerable worry in view of the practices of Spanish vessels in our waters, especially the illegal fishing reported to me by our fishermen and the appalling conditions on board the Spanish vessels. It is not just a matter of crews going to sea without food or toilet facilities — we are talking about vessels without logs or safety equipment and utterly unacceptable conditions.
I will not add to the other points that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made. Nevertheless, the Spanish influence worries me. I greatly hope that the Government will take that up and that they will ensure that such practices cease. I also hope that we will provide reasonable conditions in which our seamen can work.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): As we have come to expect on such occasions, this has been a most interesting and, I might say, wide-ranging debate on the various Community documents relating to fishing being considered by the House tonight. The knowledgeable contributions made by hon. Members amply reflect the importance of the fishing industry to the many parts of the country that they represent.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Who is the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. MacKay: I think that my constituency probably has many more fish swimming round it than that of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes). I say that in reply to his sedentary intervention.
It is particularly gratifying to be able to take part in a debate on the fishing industry during which there has been such broad recognition of the highly satisfactory nature of the arrangements that we have been able to negotiate for 1985. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke almost glowingly about

our efforts, but I thought that his speech was to a certain extent dwarfed by some of the remarks of Opposition Members. I refer, in particular, to the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I even noted that towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Great Grimsby appealed to British United Trawlers to look at the long term. He said that the long-term prospects for fishing were good. I think that there has been a fair measure of agreement about that tonight. There has certainly been a fair measure of agreement about the fact that that situation has been brought about by the successful negotiations carried out in the Community by my right hon. and hon. Friends, not only this year but during the past few years.
The arrangements have been warmly welcomed not only by the House but by the industry. I have said before when concluding fishery debates that our task now is to keep the common fisheries policy in good shape, so that fishermen may plan ahead with some confidence. Of course, improvements can always be made, and I hope that in 1985 we can consolidate the progress already made and concentrate on ensuring that the industry makes the most of its fishing opportunities.
In particular, I should like to highlight the useful experience gained in 1984 in developing quota management arrangements. Unlike certain other parties, our philosophy is that business men know best how to run their own affairs. More than most industries, the fishing industry has to learn to live with the consequences of actions taken by the European Commission and by the Council of Ministers.
We regularly consult the industry before decisions are taken on quota arrangements. At a domestic level it is right that the industry should play a greater role in organising its fishing patterns so as to meet market demands. The better prospects for the major stocks have allowed us to negotiate quotas that should facilitate the broader introduction of sectoral quotas, which allow the fishing organisations to assume day-to-day responsibility for the management of their members' quotas. In that way the industry can be given the best chance to meet the needs of the market and of the fishermen.
The hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned a number of points on the same theme when he expressed the hope that, in particular, the extra herring that we caught would find a ready market among consumers. I am sure that the whole House agrees with that. I just hope that we can perhaps pass on a message to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) that he should put herring on the menu in the various cafeterias in the House — [Interruption.] Perhaps he could ensure that it appears on the menu even more often than at present, although it appears pleasantly often. I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends sample it.
Among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned the Sea Fish Industry Authority. We have to look to that authority to encourage the British housewife to eat more fish, particularly herring. On 17 December the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), announced that the European Commission had given its approval to more than three quarters of the authority's development programme. This has enabled the authority to press ahead with its campaign to improve the marketing of fish in the United Kingdom for which the Government have pledged £7·9 million towards the authority's proposed spending of


over £14 million in the first three years. The authority is well aware of the problems of herring and is putting a special emphasis on marketing herring so that the housewife will go back to making herring part of the British diet.
It is difficult to be logical in a wind-up speech covering the wide range of issues that were raised and I will apologise in advance for the fact that on this occasion, to the surprise of all Opposition Members, I will be less logical than I usually am.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West all mentioned the problems of Spanish accession. We are very conscious of the size of the Spanish fleet and the potential impact that the uncontrolled upsurge of Spanish efforts after accession could have on the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. That is why we have pressed hard and long for satisfactory arrangements to be secured in the current enlargement negotiations. The agreed Community position endorsed by Heads of Government at the European Council meeting on 3 and 4 December 1984 was very satisfactory from our point of view. Negotiations are proceeding with speed. For obvious reasons, I cannot be too explicit with the House about the details of the Community position, but I can assure hon. Members that it fully safeguards the interests of the United Kingdom.
I deal next with another question which exercised a number of hon. Members—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the question of Norway pout. I am well aware of the industry's concern over the decision to increase the bycatch limit for whiting in the Norway pout fishery in the North sea, but I hope that hon. Members will not get this out of perspective. The increases in the availability of the main white fish species in the North sea this year hardly suggest that the industrial fishing is damaging the stocks.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who represents Norfolk, South, informed the House in opening a debate on 3 July that he would use every available argument against the Commission's proposals. We did that. But every other member state was prepared to agree the proposals and, as the increased total allowable catches for 1985 indicate, the scientific arguments against the proposals were not conclusive. In these circumstances we had no alternative but to negotiate. As a result of the firm line that we took, we secured major improvements in the proposals. Instead of a permanent change as proposed by the Commission, the Council agreed a temporary derogation expiring on 31 May 1985. I think that answers one point that I was asked.
The bycatch limit for whiting went up from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent., not 20 per cent. as originally proposed, while the limit for other species was of course reduced to 8 per cent. as proposed.
We also secured the introduction of new monitoring arrangements which will ensure that for the first time we shall know what effect the bycatch provision is having. In addition, we got the Commission to introduce a permanent regulation on the procedure for sampling the white fish bycatch in all small net fisheries.
The Department in Scotland has intensified its surveillance of the Norway pout fishery and stepped up the level of inspection, and 45 vessels have been boarded since 1 October last year. In most cases so far the bycatch percentage has been under, or close to, the original 10 per cent. limit. The original 10 per cent. limit will come back into effect as from 1 June 1985 unless the Council, on a proposal by the Commission, decides otherwise. The Government will clearly be very reluctant to see any extension of the increased limit, but we shall have to consider the facts of the matter as they are revealed by the results of the monitoring exercise and the up-to-date scientific advice when it comes forward at that time.
I have just touched on the amount of inspection that we have been giving the Norway pout fishing. That takes me on to the whole question of the enforcement of the quotas, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Durham and other hon. Members. The House knows that the Government in every negotiation have been very keen on insisting that the quotas are properly enforced. As we know that we do this, we expect our European partners to enforce the quotas in the same way.
The industry and the House can be assured that we shall continue to impress upon the Commission the need to ensure that the rules of the CFP are properly enforced by all member states. Largely as a result of our efforts, the Commission set up its own fishery inspectorate to investigate how the rules are enforced by the Administrations of each member state. We saw a good deal of progress in 1984. The inspectorate carried out a programme of more than 50 visits to member states, during which many irregularities were uncovered.
At the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 4 December my right hon. Friend asked the Commission to produce a report on the first year's operation of the inspectorate. He also made it clear that we should look to the Commission to propose suitable penalties for systematic overfishing of quotas which is substantiated. Further improvements in the quota observance should result from the introduction of standard logbooks and landing returns which are now expected to be enforced in the Community by 1 April.
The hon. Member for City of Durham asked me about the policing and control of the Manx fisheries. We are satisfied with the control of the Manx herring fishery, which is largely prosecuted by Northern Irish vessels. We maintain a fishery protection vessel on station in that fishery, and the minimum landing sizes enforced on the Isle of Man are the same as for elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked about the 2,000 tonnes of cod for Denmark which were granted outside the total allowable catch. I confirm that the council agreed the 2,000 tonnes of cod for Denmark outside the TAC on the basis that this was the third year of an agreement reached in 1983. My right hon. Friend made it clear that we did not want to see that repeated next year.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives asked about Spanish vessels using the United Kingdom flag. Perhaps I should have mentioned that when I spoke about the Spanish accession problem. The legislation we introduced in 1983 has largely solved the problem of ex-Spanish vessels for the time being, but we are aware that the solution will not apply when Spain is a member of the Community. We are actively pursuing alternative solutions in our discussion


with the Commission and other member states. We are mindful of the problem that could occur when Spain joins the Community.
I was asked about the west Greenland cod. It was suggested that that was an imaginary fish, but we caught a small quantity of cod in west Greenland in 1984—about 10 tonnes. Fishing conditions were poor and are likely to be so again this year.
A small but important issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East is the question of Pittenweem harbour. If and when the harbour board introduces a proposal for development, it will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend. All major expenditure on harbour work has to pass the test of investment appraisal as part of that consideration. My hon. Friend will welcome the news just given that the firm, M. Stewart and Sons Ltd., fish processors in Pittenweem, has just received a grant of £11,000 from the EC under the second round.
Many hon. Members touched on the difficult question of beam trawling. It was suggested that those hon. Members who opposed it should try airing their opposition in Brixham, but they did not all rush from the Chamber to do so.

Mr. Mark Hughes: We were waiting to listen to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's reply.

Mr. MacKay: How nice! The current regulations prohibit beam trawling for sole or plaice within 12 miles of the coast by vessels over 70 gross registered tonnes or 300 brake horsepower. The need to protect inshore fishing grounds on which smaller fishermen are dependent from the impact of large beam trawlers is widely recognised, but the precise terms of the regulations present problems, especially for enforcement. The 300 bhp restriction is difficult to enforce, because in many cases the engine power of a vessel is not known and is not easy to measure. The practice of derating engines also presents a problem. The Commission's latest proposal attempts to define engine power in terms which it will be possible to apply at least to the range of engines in common use, and it provides that derating can be recognised only if it is carried out and certified by a competent authority. That might go some, but not all of the way to solving the enforcement problems.
The Commission has proposed deleting the tonnage criterion, since methods of establishing registered tonnage are not uniform among member states. That has given rise to legal problems. It proposes replacing the tonnage by a new formula of overall length of the vessel multiplied by the maximum beam, but that would be impossible to measure with great safety at sea, unless it was a calm day, and it is not clear that existing measurements of length of beam are always recorded on the certificates normally carried on board and that they would be the same measurements for each member state. That also poses a problem.
The fairest and most readily enforceable way of restricting the effective fishing power of beam trawlers within the 12-mile belt would be to return to the rule which Britain applied before 25 January 1983—a restriction on the overall length of fishing beams. There is widespread industry support for that, and we shall continue to press it, but I must tell the House that there is opposition within the Community, especially from the Netherlands.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me whether I intended to introduce a ban on beam trawling,

as I was urged to do during the Committee stage of the Inshore Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1984. The Government are considering the various propositions before them for action under the Act, but we believe that there is not enough scientific evidence for such a blanket prohibition, and I am sceptical of the need for such a measure. I hope that the revised proposals for inshore legislation will soon be issued to the industry for comment. Those who wish to comment on the presence or absence of anything about beam trawling will have the opportunity to do so.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also asked me about Norway. He was worried—I understand his anxiety—that the Norwegians may take an excessive amount of herring from their portion of the North sea. All that I can say by way of reassurance is that Norway has given an undertaking to take account of the available biological advice in managing that fishery. Of course, we want negotiations with Norway to start as soon as possible, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we must be sure that the negotiations are conducted on a proper basis and that the result is satisfactory to the British Government and to the fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, with other hon. Members, asked me whether fisheries would be closed if the total allowable catches were met but some member country—he was especially worried about the United Kingdom—had some quota left. My right hon. Friend the Minister responded to that point, but perhaps I can repeat that we are aware of the anxiety in the industry about this possibility, and we have made the Commission aware that we are worried about it. It is unfair that in circumstances where Britain had tried to apportion its fishing catch throughout the year to give its fishing industry a year's work, we should discover towards the end of that year, when we had some quota remaining, that other countries had overfished, the total allowable catch had been exceeded, and the fishery was closed. We are discussing that matter with the Community.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend accept the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the countries which suffered from that clampdown did not include Britain? I believe that France and Belgium suffered. To that extent, it would show our good faith if anxiety was expressed on the general principle, which is all the more reason why the Commission should regard our proposal in a reasonable way.

Mr. MacKay: Yes, we told the Commission that we thought it wrong that the French, who still had some quota to take up, had suffered the ban as well as the countries that had exceeded their quota.
I was asked about the sprat boxes. The closure of the various boxes—areas off Denmark and off the coasts of Scotland and England — will be reviewed by the Commission in the coming months with appropriate scientific advice. Sometimes scientific advice is welcome to our fishermen, and sometimes it is not. We must take it into consideration at all times, and not just when it suits us. The scientific advice will play an important part in our decision on the matter.
Our records of sightings of foreign vessels in the north of Scotland box last year suggest that fishing activity was at about the same level as in previous years.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland considers that the common fisheries policy should be amenable to


renegotiation in the case of the north of Scotland box. However, with reference to the Norwegian pout, the hon. Gentleman told us that certain other aspects of the CFP are not amenable to renegotiation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the question of redundancy for fishermen. Perhaps I should also point out that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who made one or two interventions, had also intended to speak, but he had to go home because he has a back problem that was beginning to play him up. I know that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is also interested in this question.
Fisheries debates tend to be attended by a sub-group of the House of Commons. Almost every hon. Member who is here has attended such debates in the past, and knows that these matters have been fully discussed. There was an Adjournment debate on 13 April. The Secretary of State for Employment, who is responsible under the 1978 Act for statutory redundancy and who therefore deals with employment matters in all sectors of industry, replied to that debate. Also, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained in a written answer on 2 March that the fisheries Ministers had concluded that it would not be appropriate to introduce a special redundancy scheme for the fishing industry at this late stage in the process of change which the industry has undergone under successive Governments. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will not be surprised by that answer, though he will be disappointed.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: A manifest injustice faces those made redundant in the past who see people made redundant by Hamlings, for instance, who, although their conditions of work and length of service had been similar, are now receiving compensation because the law is being interpreted differently. That is a serious anomaly.
Secondly, I wonder whether Ministers are urging within the EEC that Europe has a responsibility? An organisation that compensates owners for decommissioning or laying up vessels should also compensate the fishermen made redundant in that process.

Mr. MacKay: If we were to change anything now, we would be doing so at the end of a long period of time in which many people have had to leave the industry. Those people would feel that they had been unfairly treated if some new measure were introduced at the tail end of such major changes.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was not present when I alluded to his statement that the long-term prospects for the industry are good. I can even pray the hon. Gentleman himself in aid.

Mr. Randall: Is it not illogical to compensate the owners of the vessels that have lost the opportunity to fish and yet to give nothing to the deck hands and others who have worked in the industry?

Mr. MacKay: First, it was the owners who had made the investment. Secondly, we were attempting to slim the industry to a size that we thought would match the catching capacity.

Mr. Randall: What about the investment of labour?

Mr. MacKay: Opposition Members are entitled to have a go at me, but I must remind them that the Labour Government did not accept the arguments that were advanced either. If we changed our view now, we should be doing so at the tail end of the process. We have no intention of doing that.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby would not think it fair of me if I did not make some passing comment on a major part of his speech about Grimsby and British United Trawlers. I shall not comment, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister listened carefully to what he said. I am pretty certain from my hearing of the hon. Member that he would not have expected me to say anything other than that. With regard to Grimsby and Humberside, perhaps I might draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend is to meet the Humberside authorities on Monday 28 January to discuss the report that has been mentioned. Rather than enter into correspondence before the meeting, I assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that probably more issues than he could have pursued will be dealt with at that meeting.
The debate has been a useful opportunity to hear the House's views on these matters and others that go wider of the documents but which are still concerned with the fishing industry. As my right hon. Friend has explained, circumstances prevented the House from being able to consider these documents before the Fisheries Council met on 19 December. Nevertheless, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the negotiations conducted by my right hon. Friends and my hon. Friend have led to a satisfactory conclusion for the United Kingdom fishing industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10171/84 and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum on 1985 total allowable catches and quotas; of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum on 1985 catch quotas in Greenland waters, and of the unnumbered explanatory memoranda on the fisheries agreements for 1985 between the European Community and Norway, the European Community and the Faroe Islands and the European Community and Spain; of European Community Documents Nos. 10697/84 on technical conservation measures and 10264/84 on 1985 fish guide prices; and welcomes and approves the provisional agreement reached on these arrangements for 1985 with the improvements obtained for the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Ethiopia (United Kingdom Aid)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the House back to discussing United Kingdom aid to Ethiopia.
The horrors of the famine in Ethiopia have been in world headlines for three months. The response of the people of Britain in raising money for aid and of the charities to use that money effectively has been remarkable. The United Kingdom Government and many others have mounted a massive campaign to get short-term aid to Ethiopia. I believe that the Ethiopian Government, its people and other groups in Tigré and Eritrea have also made tremendous efforts to tackle the problems of the famine; but in Tigré and Wollo in Ethiopia, people are still dying at about the same rate as in October. There are more people in relief camps in Ethiopia and the Sudan and, if anything, the need for aid is growing rather than diminishing. Increasing numbers of people are being driven from their homes and villages in Ethiopia by the famine. Sadly, the massive effort has not resulted in the matter getting better. We can only claim that it has not got worse much more quickly.
The horrors that were reported on television in October, which I and other hon. Members and the Minister saw in November, are the result largely of the failure of the 1983 harvest. We now face the problems of the 1984 harvest. If we are able to get only 90,000 tonnes of food into Ethiopia through the port of Assab each month from now until October, we shall only hold the crisis at bay. If we can get only 20,000 tonnes of food into Ethiopia each month through the Sudan, we shall also only be holding the crisis at bay. All we are doing is preventing a horrific position from getting worse. It is against that background that I want to put specific questions to the Minister on what the Government are doing to try to improve conditions.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House up-to-date information about the pledges on food grain. Can he go back to his answer of 4 December and update the table on pledges for food grain and supplementary food for Ethiopia? What are the expected dates of arrival of those pledges in the port of Assab? Is he satisfied that enough has been promised for the next nine months to ensure that at least the present standard of aid can be continued?
Can the Minister explain to the House and to the country why the United Nations and the world food programme denied in November that there would be a shortage of grain in the port of Assab in December whereas, as I understand it, for almost three weeks there was insufficient grain in the port to keep the relief operation going at full force? What steps are the Government taking to try to sort out what appears to be a great deal of complacency and incompentence in the United Nations and the world food programme? Is he satisfied that the United Nations has got its co-ordination working?
Is it true that there is still insuffiicent food promised for delivery in April and May? What are the Government doing to ensure that sufficient food will be provided? Can the Minister tell us how much of the EC aid promised at the Dublin summit has been committed to Ethiopia and

how far that has got into a programme for delivery from specific countries? Can he assure us that that aid earmarked for Ethiopia will get there at specific times?
Is the Minister satisfied that a steady supply of aid is planned to arrive at the port of Assab in the months from April to October? Is he satisfied that sufficient food has been promised for delivery through the Sudan to Western Tigré and Eritrea? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient vehicles to transport it on that route?
I am sure the Minister will agree that the RAF played a major role in moving the grain from Assab during November. It is still fulfilling that role. Can he tell us if the Government will ensure that the RAF remains there beyond the end of this month? I think that the initial promise was that it would be there for three months. Many people said from the start that it would be needed for much longer. I hope that the Government can promise now that the Hercules planes and the RAF will remain in Ethiopia for at least a further five or six months.
What steps have been taken to improve the handling capacity at the port of Assab? How many vehicles have our Government supplied; and are we in a position to increase the handling capacity of that port? Are we able to speed up the transport of grain by road into Wollo and Tigré?
Can the Minister tell us about increased supplies of supplementary food? When one talks to the relief agencies one finds that there is considerable concern that there are not facilities in some of the relief camps to mill grain and that some of the grain is not put to the best use because it is difficult for young children to eat it in the form in which it arrives. Can the Government say anything about the possibility of increasing supplementary food and helping the Ethiopian Government to process food if it does not arrive in a suitable form for young children.
Can the Minister tell us what is being done to improve accommodation in the camps, particularly if the small rains come in late January and February, to ensure that people are not out in he open?
This brings me on to medium-term aid. What are the Government doing to try to ensure that the people in the affected areas of Ethiopia will be able to return to their villages and plant crops in June, July, August and September if the 1985 rains come? What are we doing to help with the supply of seed and draught animals for ploughing? Are we able to give any short-term aid to ensure that the water is effectively trapped, to reduce the amount of soil erosion that results from some of the storms, and to help improve cultivation? What aims do we have to try to get sufficient food into the relief camps so that people can take three months supply of food back to their villages when they return to cultivate the land?
Can the Minister say more about the Government's attempts to negotiate long-term aid schemes with the Ethiopian Government? I am sure that on his visit he realised that it was not sufficient to provide only short-term aid and that we must look to long-term aid.
I am tremendously impressed by the efforts of the British people, be they school children or others, to raise money for Ethiopia. It is clear that my constituents and the people of this country want the starving to be fed now, and many feel strongly that this situation should not occur again. As I have said before, many people died in the affected areas of Ethiopia in 1965, they died in large numbers in 1973, and they are dying now. Now that the Minister and other hon. Members have been to see for


themselves, we have an absolute responsibility to ensure that this does not happen again. The only way we can do so is by turning to long-term aid.
I hope that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) will catch the eye of the Chair, after which I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for allowing me time to participate in this debate. I support the general thrust of his arguments.
I wish to concentrate on one or two brief points. Since the House debated this matter just before Christmas, there have been increasing allegations that the Ethiopian Government have been using food aid to feed their troops and that food aid donated by the West and other agencies is going astray.
This is not the first time that such allegations have been made. On each and every occasion that they have been investigated, the allegations have been found to be without substance. In July 1981, a European Parliament delegation visited Ethiopia and reported that the country was making responsible and effective use of the food and other aid provided by the European Community and that there was no evidence to suggest that food was going astray. Again, in June 1983, another delegation from the European Parliament visited Ethiopia and satisfied itself that food aid was being properly used and, contrary to allegations, had not been diverted from its intended purpose. That was confirmed by a later report of the Commission of the European Community.
Neither Save the Children Fund nor Oxfam, which have teams in the Government-controlled areas of Ethiopia, have seen any evidence of relief supplies being diverted to the Ethiopian army, and the relief agency teams monitoring their own relief programmes have been able to confirm that money donated by the British public and others reaches its intended target. I have no doubt that the present Ethiopian Government have many faults, but I do not believe that the abuse of food aid is one of them.
It is a sad fact that, added to the continuing tragedy of famine in Ethiopia, there are now allegations of food aid going astray, based on propaganda arising out of the consequences of civil war. I fear that these allegations will only reduce the amount of food aid which Ethiopia as a whole receives.
As a consequence of these allegations, it has been requested that there should be a new international commission to supervise and control the relief offered. Already a number of the United Nations agencies have been involved. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the world food programme, to which reference has been made, and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees are already involved.
What we need is not a new commission but better coordination of the existing international agencies. I understand that the United Nations Secretary-General specifically appointed an Assistant Secretary-General, Kurt Jansson, to supervise the relief operation and to coordinate information from donor countries and agencies as to the food relief being sent. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the British Government are satisfied that Kurt Jansson and the United Nations and its various

agencies have now got a grip on the situation in order to ensure that relief aid is being distributed through their agencies to all parts of Ethiopia.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for raising the subject of British aid to Ethiopia and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). Both the hon. Member and my hon. Friend have followed the course of events in Ethiopia very steadily and persistently over the last year or two. We know of their very great concern about the subject. It is valuable that once again they should have come back to the topic. We know that the situation in Ethiopia is still very grave. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was right to stress this point. I hope he will forgive me if I do not answer every single one of the string of pertinent questions which he put, but I shall try to answer by correspondence those that I am unable to tackle this evening. However, the hon. Member, as has my hon. Friend, reminded the House that there are very many important points which we have to keep closely in mind. I agree with what the hon. Member had to say about public opinion. Clearly public opinion has been aroused by this tragedy and will not suddenly forget all about the problem. It is deeply engraved in the minds of very many people.
It is sometimes implied that until last autumn we had done nothing about Ethiopia. Some people had never thought about Ethiopia and assumed that nobody else had thought about it, either. In fact, during the last two years our assistance to Ethiopia had been stepped up, and on a dozen or so occasions we had responded to appeals from international organisations and voluntary agencies for help in the worsening situation. In the period up to October 1984 the help given has cost the aid programme £15·5 million, half being our share of help provided through the European Community, in support of six separate actions.
On the long-term side, to which both the hon. Member and my hon. Friend referred, we have also been able to take the first steps towards restoring normal aid relations with Ethiopia. Twelve months ago we were happy to agree to provide support for postgraduate medical training at Addis Ababa which the Ethiopian Government saw as their highest priority. In addition, one of my educational advisers visited Ethiopia three months ago to assess training needs. We are currently considering her recommendations.
In July 1984, following the settlement of compensation for Mitchell Cotts, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), paid the first visit to Ethiopia by a British Minister for many years. While he was there he offered the Ethiopian Government the cancellation of repayments on outstanding aid loans, worth about £2·5 million. In recent months we have also agreed to fund a resumption of volunteer activities in Ethiopia.
So even before the intensification of interest in Ethiopia over the last few weeks we had in fact seen some building up of what I might call the normal development programme. But obviously in the last three months our efforts have necessarily been concentrated on providing emergency assistance for victims of the famine. As the scale of the human tragedy became more apparent, not least through the harrowing scenes shown on our television


screens, the Government have increased the help that they are giving, which now totals a further £14 million. In doing so, we have taken particular care to listen to the British agencies active in Ethiopia and to the views of our ambassador to ensure that our assistance is spent on equipment and supplies which quickly and directly help the relief operations.
To that end, as well as providing new Land-Rovers and dumper trucks, we have provided spare parts to get other vehicles back on the road, and mobile workshops to help keep them there so that supplies can be kept moving.
Through the voluntary agencies, we have provided two drilling rigs along with trucks and associated equipment; four Land-Rovers, five 30-tonne trucks; grain mills, tents, blankets, seeds, tools, polythene sheets and either the chartering of planes or the cost of airfreight for some of these and other items supplied by the agencies.
Our relief supplies have included 50 km of cable and rope and 500 tarpaulins. We have also provided grain conveyors and other items to help improve the handling facilities at the port of Assab—a question which has just been raised. As I saw for myself during my visit at the end of November, the operations there are now much more efficient, for which credit must go to the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission and the Marine Transport Authority of the Ethiopian Government.
During that visit, as I think the House knows, I went to the feeding centres at Korem and Mekele. They are as desolate as one would expect, but even the most starved-looking children can usually recover with food and care. Those visits brought home to me vividly the need for tents, blankets and medical supplies and, at my request on my return to this country, my officials sent further supplies of these items.
I should emphasise that we have been able to respond quickly in conjunction with the voluntary agencies. That was demonstrated again early in December when, following unexpected heavy rains at Alamata, we provided more tents and polythene sheeting within a very few days.
As the hon. Gentleman said, a particularly significant element of British assistance has been the detachment of two RAF Hercules together with a support team. These aircraft have been helping to move large quantities of relief supplies from Addis Ababa and the port of Assab to the areas of greatest immediate need. As well as food, they have transported medical supplies, clothing, blankets and vehicles. To date, they have moved over 4,000 tonnes working seven days a week including Christmas day.
In keeping with the best tradition of the service, the RAF responded to the request for help quickly—indeed, ours was the first foreign Government to set up an airborne famine relief operation—and the efficiency, friendly cooperation and professionalism with which it operates has won widespread praise from the relief agencies and the Ethiopian Government. That was made clear to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and also to me when each of us visited Addis Ababa.
I have been asked how long the airlift will continue. The initial commitment was for three months, but we are considering whether to extend that, taking into account the latest assessment of needs provided by the Ethiopian Government and the intentions of other donors. We must consider how we can best use the available resources and whether it is best to continue with the air operation or to concentrate on other things.
The individual items that I have described are important, but the greatest need is for food, particularly grain. In recent weeks, we have agreed to provide a further 21,500 tonnes of grain, and the first shipment of 6,500 tonnes arrived at the port of Massawa just after Christmas. However, the scale of the human disaster in Ethiopia clearly requires relief supplies, especially food, to be provided on a massive scale over a prolonged period.
That is why, at the end of October, we took the initiative in urging our partners in the European Community to make a significant response to the needs of Ethiopia and other drought-stricken countries in Africa. In the year to the end of October 1984, the Community had already made available 125,000 tonnes of grain and other food for Ethiopia. It then agreed on 6 November a further special programme of food aid and transport assistance, costing £35 million, for drought-affected countries in Africa. Ethiopia will be receiving 45,000 tonnes of cereals and about £8 million in other emergency relief from that programme.
In addition, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the European Council, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended in Dublin, agreed on 4 December that the Community and its member states will provide 1·2 million tonnes of grain to drought-affected countries in Africa, including Ethiopia, during 1985.
The Community has since agreed to allocate £47 million from the emergency provision of the Lomé convention, and to transfer £53 million to the emergency provision of the 1984 Budget to finance the first 500,000 tonnes.
Such has been the reaction of the international community in recent weeks that more than 20 countries are now contributing to the relief efforts in Ethiopia, and the role of the United Nations co-ordinator, Mr. Jansson, is, therefore, of particular importance. He has already started to pull things together, in collaboration with the Ethiopian authorities and donors, and held a useful meeting in New York on 18 December.
We see one of Mr. Jansson's tasks, perhaps his most important task, as establishing the needs of Ethiopia in the next 12 months, and we hope that progress on this will be made in the next few weeks. It is clear that his task is difficult. Until now, the authorities have not really known what is due to arrive when. There have been instances when supplies have been overestimated and others when they have been underestimated. It is crucially important that the United Nations representative should have a full grasp of what is happening, and to do that he must have accurate and effective information from donor countries.
I was asked to give an assessment of needs, particularly after the month of March. I must in honesty say that it is difficult to say exactly what the flow will be after March. We have seen figures for the immediate period, for the first three months of this year, and they show that a substantial quantity of grain is on the way. In addition, substantial pledges have been made. There has been the generous response by way of promises from the Community, the United States and other countries.
It is important that not only should food come in in enormous quantities but that the pipeline should be properly managed, and that is a matter in which we shall take a close interest, although the responsibility for that lies with Mr. Jansson, with the world food programme and so on. It is extremely important that there should be coordination. I am concerned by recent reports which have


suggested that more food may arrive at the Ethiopian ports in the next two months than they have the capacity to handle, even though the capacity has been much improved.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is important to keep the airlift there, because it played a crucial part in November in speeding up the handling of grain through the ports. If there is any surplus of grain, it is important that the airlift is kept going so that the supplies may be moved on as quickly as possible to the places where they are needed.

Mr. Raison: That is obviously a factor, but unloading is also a factor. I believe that the supplies to be allocated in the coming immediate period should be enough. They are substantial quantities which should be sufficient—and, if anything, too much — for the time being. Difficulties will be imposed if there is too much grain in the ports, not merely because of the handling difficulties but because of problems with storing it. The lesson to be learnt, therefore, is that while it is better to have too much than too little, we want a properly planned, steady, flow of grain in the period to come.
It is essential to ensure that relief supplies reach victims of the famine wherever they may be. As I told the House on 18 December, we have urged the Ethiopian Government to ensure that food and relief supplies reach all those areas, including Eritrea and Tigré, where it is needed and to ensure that military operations do not interfere with the movement of food and civilians. We believe that the best way to get the food there is to work through the voluntary agencies and the international committee of the Red Cross.
There is a peculiarly difficult situation, including the movement of refugees into the Sudan for which, as the House knows, I have in recent weeks announced further assistance totalling £1·85 million. We have made it clear that food must go where it is most needed. However, we

firmly recognise Ethiopia's international frontiers, and we cannot support secession as part of the whole imbroglio. The organisations which have taken up arms against the Ethiopian Government cannot escape the fact that they have also contributed to the difficulties which exist in getting food where it is most needed.
Of course, if there were less fighting, if the Ethiopian Government did not devote their energies and foreign exchange to the purchase of arms and if there were more resources, more energy would be available for the country's development. We are bound to ask whether the Ethiopian Government could not do more to secure the willing consent of all the peoples of Ethiopia to their rule. All those interested in the welfare of Ethiopia are bound to observe that Ethiopia's internal difficulties inevitably hinder relief and development for the region as a whole
On the question whether food is failing to get through—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury — it is fair to say that, although there are difficulties and although there have been reports of supplies being misappropriated, I believe that it would be quite wrong for the public to reach the conclusion that the money that they subscribe on food aid is a waste of money. The overwhelming bulk of the money both from the people of this counry and from the Government is reaching the right destination, and will continue to do so. I hope that no one is put off by the scare stories, although I accept that we have to watch the position carefully.
I should have liked to have said a little more about the longer-term because that, ultimately, is the answer to finding ways to prevent the recurrence of the famines. However, time does not permit that. I conclude by thanking both hon. Members for raising this topic. I hope that they will continue with their interest in it, because that is what the country expects.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o' clock.